(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노1550

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노1550

업무상횡령등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) that the court below sentenced against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the crime of this case does not amount to 15,297,190 won in total, etc. In addition, even though the victim was aware of the crime and agreed on the victim’s compensation for damage, the crime of embezzlement is deemed to have been committed. The fact that the crime of this case was committed for a considerable period of time is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant made an agreement with the victim to be free of compensation for six months in relation to some of the crimes of occupational embezzlement around the end of December, 2010, and the Defendant made efforts to recover from damage, such as making deposits of KRW 2,749,00 for the victim during the six-month period, and making efforts to deposit KRW 2,230,00 for the victim (the damage of the victim was restored to a considerable part through the above agreement and deposit). The Defendant did not have any criminal power exceeding fines, and the Defendant appears to have been detained for more than two months in the instant case, and the Defendant appears to have been living in custody for more than two months, taking into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, the sentencing of the Sentencing Committee is too unfair.

3. The court below rendered a compensation order of KRW 2,230,000 to the defendant who applied for compensation, but the defendant deposited KRW 2,230,00 for the applicant for compensation since the scope of the defendant's compensation liability is unclear, the court below held that this part of the application for compensation order was made in the criminal procedure.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.12.04 2015노5796

-청주지방법원 2014.12.05 2014노985

-제주지방법원 2015.12.10 2015노521

-창원지방법원 2013.04.19 2013노436

-청주지방법원 2014.06.27 2014노314