Appellant V. Sisuph Case Study

FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant, Director of Finance at Toyota Marin Lou Suriyan Sisuphan, took almost $30,000 in order to persuade the termination of Sisuphan’s coworker Ian McClelland by suggesting that McClelland should be held responsible for the lost money. The Appellant did not have the intention to take this money permanently, and returned the money before any charges were filed, but not within the 24 hour amnesty period that the dealership offered. The dealership terminated Sisphan’s employment, and charged Sisuphan with a “felony offense of embezzlement by an employee of property valued in excess of $400 (§§ 487, subd. (a), 508, & 514) and alleging a prior assault conviction (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) as a sentence enhancement.”JUDICIAL HISTORY: The trial court found Sisuphan
Dieck (2009) 46 Cal.4th 934, 940.) The court, however, has disagreed, arguing that the diction in section 512 is clear, and the intent of the law is explicitly stated (People v. Black (1982) 32 Cal.3d 1, 5.) Additionally, Sisuphan has argued that his intentions were in the best interest of the company. The court did not find this as a viable