(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.05.28 2018노3455 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2019.05.28 2018노3455

횡령

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ respective sentences of the lower court (the Defendants: one year and two months of imprisonment, three years of probation, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, confiscation) are too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above forms of the lower court’s judgment is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The defendants recognized their mistakes and reflects them, and the fact that the victim paid the full amount of damages to the victim and did not want the punishment of the defendants by agreement is favorable circumstances.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed under the circumstances where the Defendants embezzled the money while being aware that it was the damage amount of the crime of Bosing, and the nature of the crime is not good, the amount of embezzlement is not specified as KRW 49 million, and the person who proposed the crime of this case to Defendant B was Defendant A, and Defendant B was punished by a fine due to the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

There is no special relationship or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the party, and comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances of the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

The defendants and the prosecutor's arguments are not accepted.

3. In conclusion, each appeal against the Defendants by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is without merit, and all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, “No. 1” in the text of the judgment of the court below is apparent in the record that “No. 2, seized evidence No. 1,” and “No. 2,” in the text of the judgment of the court below, is a clerical error of the “No. 1, No. 1,” and “No. 1, No. 2,” and thus, ex officio rectification is made pursuant to Article 25(

참조조문

-전자금융거래법

-형사소송규칙 제25조 제1항

-형사소송법 제364조 제4항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.23 2016노1277

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.28 2019노40

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019노1738

-수원지방법원 2016.12.09 2016노3668

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.05 2015노1733