beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. It is true that the gist of the grounds for appeal purporting to the effect that the defendant punished the victim E as embezzlement.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.
In the facts charged at the trial of the party, the prosecutor filed an application for changes to a bill of amendment with the purport that “The victim has received KRW 10,000 per month at the cost of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission, and only KRW 10,000 per month at the cost of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission,” and that “The victim shall have received KRW 10,000 per month at the cost of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission and paid KRW 20,000 per day to the general manager, and embezzled by arbitrarily consuming KRW 240,00 per two years at the cost of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission.” Since this Court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was dismissed for the purpose of having the victim be subject to criminal punishment, even though the victim E was the head of CBD’s team leader and the construction cost, etc. was not embezzled.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
The Defendant was a person living in the instant CBL (hereinafter “CBL”) No. 102, and the Defendant’s wife D from January 2008, and around May 2009.