香港特別行政區 訴 鄭文曦

HCMA 257/2016

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

刑事上訴司法管轄權

判刑上訴

案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2016年第257號

(原觀塘裁判法院刑事案件2016年第1576號)

______________

判案理由書

1. 上訴人承認三項「盜竊」罪，每項被判入獄6 個月，裁判官下令控罪 2及控罪 3的刑期中的各1 個月與控罪 1的刑期分期執行，總刑期為8 個月，上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴。本席裁定上訴得直，撤銷8 個月的總刑期，以6 個月之總刑期代之，以下是理由。

2. 上訴人事發時是一時裝店的售貨員，控罪 1指他在售出一個手袋後把貨款現金港幣2,080 元放入錢櫃，但沒有作出銷售記錄，他在當天晚上獨自當值時把現金全數取出，據為己有。

3. 翌日，他以類同的手法把售出一件外衣的港幣2,280 元的貨款偷取。

4. 控罪 3發生在約12 天後，上訴人售出兩條價值分別為港幣2,380 元及港幣1,980 元的褲子，後來同事發現公司並沒有出售後者的記錄，上訴人稱客人只買了前者，後者已放回貨架。後來，店員在貨架上找不到價值港幣1,980 元的褲子，上訴人起初堅持早前的說法，後又改口說可能記錯，店東當晚點算現金時，發現多出港幣20 元，報警求助。上訴人起先否認盜竊，但在觀看店內閉路電視錄影帶後承認首兩次貪心把現金偷走，又承認最後一次他從錢櫃取走港幣2,000 元，把港幣20 元放回櫃中，後來店主起疑，他又把港幣2,000 元放回櫃內，故此錢櫃內多了港幣20 元。

上訴理由

5. 上訴人的大律師，指8 個月的總刑期在本案而言，屬明顯過重：

（1）認罪下8 個月的刑期等同12 個月的總刑期量刑基準，就本案的案情而言明顯過高；

（2）上訴人已歸還僱主損失的港幣4,360 元，理應可獲高達百分之五十的量刑扣減；

（3）裁判官未有充分考慮店內尚有其他店員，並安裝了閉路電視可監察員工的舉動，故上訴人受僱主信任程度只屬一般；及

（4）原審裁判官未有適當引用整體量刑原則。

答辯人回應

6. 答辯人作出以下回應。

7. 本案的三項罪行全是違反誠信的罪行，上訴人在兩星期內，接二連三有計劃地犯案，並在干犯控罪 3後被同事質疑時把取去的現金放回以企掩飾罪行，瞞天過海，案情嚴重，本案涉及港幣6,340 元，就每項控罪而言，裁判官以9 個月作起刑點可能稍為偏高，但裁判官在考慮量刑整體性下，只下令第二及第三控罪中的各1 個月和第一控罪的6 個月分期執行，8 個月的總刑期不屬明顯過重。

8. 上訴人並非一早已向公司作出賠償，事實上，他是在求情階段才由代表大律師向法庭表示可以作出港幣4,360 元的賠償，而且，根據他的接二連三犯案作為及在東窗事發後試圖掩飾的作為，實與「賠償」可獲的額外扣減相抵。

9. 答辯人不認同上訴方所指上訴人受僱主信任的程度只是有限，因其工種是可以在無需上司監督下單獨處理賬目和客人支付的貨款，而他正正是濫用了上司或僱主對他的信任。

10. 答辯人認為判刑非明顯過重，上訴應被駁回。

判決

11. 本案是涉及違反誠信的案件，所涉總款額為港幣6,340 元，根據HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776的指引，刑期納入港幣250,000 元類，兩年以下的量刑基準。

12. 犯案人受公司信任的情況及程度，是違反誠信案件的判刑考慮因素之一，見R v Barrick [1985] 81 Cr App R 78。誠然，法庭確認一名受僱人士，假如他並非專業人士，受僱主信任度也可區分不同程度，暫委法官邱智立(“當時官階”)在HKSAR v Sherwood Kwok, HCMA 727/2012一案中援引了麥明康法官在HKSAR v Chu Lai Sze, HCMA 527/2010案中對Barrick案就受僱信任度的分析：

“It seems to me that the comments of the court were intended to apply to cases containing elements of misappropriation or fraud or other commercial dishonesty, in circumstances where there was a recognition by the offender that his actions will risk some form of economic or other prejudice to the individual or corporate entity with which he stands in a fiduciary relationship.”

13. Sherwood Kwok是一名營業經理，使用虛假的病假證明書騙取他本不能獲取的薪金，邱法官說：

“Although the court finds that the appellant as an employee was in a trusted position, the court considers that the degree of trust reposed in him which he had breached in the circumstances of the present case was relatively low.”

14. 本案情況有別於該案，上訴人是店中的售貨員，僱主容許他售賣店內的貨物及直接從顧客收取貨款，有責任把收妥的貨款放在錢箱內及作出有關的銷售記錄，不能被說成受僱主信任中程度只屬一般，因為他有權獨自或擅自處理貨款，無需受其他職員監督，而他正正是濫用及違反了僱主對他的信任，盜取客人支付的貨款，店內尚有其他店員或裝置了閉路電視，並不等同僱主對他的信任程度降低。本案的情況，一如祈彥輝法官在HKSAR v Sim Ka-wing [2001] HKCU 498所指的情況：

“Breach of trust is, of course, regarded as an aggravating feature in cases of dishonesty. But it is so regarded because the offender will have abused the trust reposed in him. That trust may have involved an employer being entrusted with his employer’s money or valuables, or being placed by his employer in a position whereby the dishonest employee could defraud his employer or his employer’s customers or clients. The point is that the offender is, to use the words of Lord Lane CJ in Barrick (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 142, in a ‘privileged and trusted’ position. It is that position of privilege and trust that he abuses.”

15. 楊振權副庭長在HKSAR v Lee Oi-lin, Irene [2012] 4 HKLRD 212一案中亦清楚指出：

“Breach of trust is a crucial sentencing factor which reflects the seriousness of the offence of stealing, from the very person who trusts the offender, property with which that person has entrusted the offender.”

16. 上訴人的大律師援引以下兩個案例，以指出裁判官的12 個月的總量刑基準，以上訴人的背景和本案案情，屬明顯過高：

（1）HKSAR v Lilik Mujiati，HCMA 474/2009，及

（2）香港特別行政區訴柯景磊，HCMA 425/2013。

17. Lilik Mujiati的上訴人是一名家庭傭工，偷取僱主的一條項鏈連鏈墜，一塊膠手錶和一個旅行袋，在聆訊後被定罪，本席認為一個2 個月的刑期是合適的，該案與本案截然不同，物品價值不高，不能相提並論。

18. 至於柯景磊案的上訴人是虛報工人應得的工資，欺騙聘用他為承辦商的公司多付工資，金額達港幣94,000 元，幅蓋16 個月，法官考慮到他已全數歸還騙取所得的金錢，把裁判官原判的37 個星期下調至8 個月的總刑期(聆訊後定罪)。

19. 本席認為該案與本案亦不盡相同，本案有着該案缺乏，即東窗事發後仍致力作出掩飾作為的情節。本案的嚴重因素已在上文多次提及，不在此贅，詳見裁斷陳述書第 14 段。

20. 本席認為在本案中唯一值得考慮的上訴理據是上訴人全數歸還由他導致僱主的損失一點。上訴人大律師所援引的Sherwood Kwok[1]，Leung Shuk Man[2]，柯景磊[3]及唐汝駿[4]案的上訴人均在判處時、甚至早在被正式檢控前已把騙取的金額全數償還。上訴人大律師力陳上訴人在出庭認罪當日之前，早已透過警方向僱主表示他準備還款，但僱主拒絕，其法律代表向裁判官求情時亦表明，事發後上訴人積極工作並已儲足款項賠償僱主損失，更表示當天下午4 時之前可以還款。其後裁判官作出還款令。

21. 上訴法庭在HKSAR v Cheung Suet Ting, CACC 226/2009一案中指出，即使上訴人在判刑後才作出賠償，上訴法庭仍可顧及這點求情因素而把刑期作出調整：

“26. . . . Again it is well established that restitution can amount to mitigation, particularly when coupled with other factors such as a plea of guilty. There is no reason why that mitigation should not continue to be available at the appellate stage so that an appellate court can properly adjust a sentence to take account of restitution made after a sentence has been passed at first instance – though naturally, . . . Full restitution, particularly in commercial crimes, must be a mitigating factor of real weight, even if it was not in itself an exceptional circumstance that would justify suspending a sentence of imprisonment. Of course, the weight to be attached to restitution as a mitigating factor will always depend on the circumstances. We are mindful of what was said by Stuart Moore VP in SJ v Lin Ming Ying & Anr [2002] 2 HKLRD 823 @ page 830 that of course, it is much stronger mitigation to be able to show that a defendant has immediately faced up to his responsibilities and made every effort at an early stage to repay any dishonest gains to the victim. However, even when restitution is paid much later in time, whatever the defendant’s motives for making reparation, the fact that dishonest gains have been repaid is nonetheless a material factor in mitigation. . . . ”

22. 然而，在該案中，上訴人在判刑後接近1 年才歸還款項，期間曾提出就定罪上訴，後來又放棄上訴，上訴法庭認為其賠償之舉並不能被視作真正悔意。

23. 上訴人在本案的賠償是在判刑後即日在裁判法院繳付的，本席認為可就此而把總刑期下調兩個月。