[사문서위조,사문서위조행사,사립학교법위반][집41(2)형,729;공1993.10.1.(953),2468]
Whether the act of dedicated the repayment of income belonging to the accounts of school expenses without permission by the supervisory authority to the repayment of debts of other accounts constitutes the "payment of principal and interest of loans" under the proviso of Article 29 (6) of the Private School Act.
In case where revenues belonging to the accounts of school juristic persons transfer or lend revenues belonging to the accounts of school juristic persons to other accounts for repayment of the debts of such other accounts, if they are not in accordance with the contents permitted in advance by the supervisory authority with the documents prescribed in Article 8(2) of the Regulations on Private School Institutions and Financial Accounting, they do not constitute the repayment of the principal and interest of loans permitted under the proviso to Article 29(6)
Articles 24 and 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 73-2 and proviso to Article 29 (6) of the Private School Act
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Sat-law (private ships), Satho, Satho, Satho, Satho, Kim Jong-chul
Daegu District Court Decision 91No936 delivered on July 23, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. On the first and third grounds for appeal
Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below in comparison with the records, it can be fully recognized that all of the crimes such as forgery of the statement of each salary, forgery of a claim for retirement benefits, and the event thereof, etc. in the judgment of the court below are committed. There is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit in the process of evidence preparation. The circumstance of the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not approve the relevant documents in collusion with the employee in charge and the discretionary authority as stated in the judgment of the court below does not interfere with the recognition of crimes, such as
In addition, according to the records, the act of preparing the statement of salary in 2 different contents from the actual receipt amount of each judgment was intended to secure finances by the law in order to repay the principal and interest of the non-indicted educational foundation accumulated, and it was not for the interest of the nominal owner. At the time, the nominal owner was not in a situation where it is impossible to make a decision on whether to approve the preparation of the above statement of salary, but the defendant was engaged in the act in this case without his consent intentionally. In light of these various circumstances, in this case, even though the defendant failed to obtain the consent of the nominal owner at the time of the preparation of the statement of salary in 2 above, it cannot be said that the defendant accepted the preparation of the above statement of salary in the name of the nominal owner if he knew of the contents of the act, even though the nominal owner did not obtain the consent of the nominal owner at the time of the preparation of the above statement of salary in 2 above, it cannot be said that such act constitutes a case where the presumed consent of the nominal owner was given. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment
2. On the second ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the Defendant guilty of applying the provisions of Article 73-2 of the Private School Act, on the ground that even if the purpose of exclusive use was to repay the principal and interest of the loans under the proviso of Article 26 (6) of the Private School Act, it did not fall under the case where the Defendant paid the principal and interest of the loans under the proviso of Article 26 (6) of the same Act to the educational foundation for the 34-month total amount of the paid-in total amount of the paid-in total amount of the paid-in total amount for 34 months, as if the Defendant erroneously appropriated the salary of the school staff by means of preparing the detailed statement of the salaries of the school staff from March 27, 1985 to December 2, 1987, incurred a difference between the actual salary and the actual salary as a donation of the corporate accounts,
If the principal and interest of a school juristic person is diverted from the revenue of the school expenses accounts to the general donation of the school juristic person, it shall be deemed permitted acts by applying the proviso of Article 29 (6) of the Private School Act if such money is actually used for the repayment of debts. However, the income belonging to the accounts of school expenses under Article 29 (2) of the Private School Act shall not be transferred or lent to other accounts: Provided, That the same shall not apply in cases where the principal and interest of the loans are repaid, and other necessary matters concerning the budget or accounting of the school juristic person shall not be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education which provides for the matters concerning the finance and accounting of the school juristic person and its establishment, and it shall not be deemed that the school juristic person's funds belong to the school juristic person's funds under the proviso of Article 8 (1) and (2) of the Financial Accounting Rules which are the Ordinance of the Ministry of Education and the school juristic person's funds which belong to the school juristic person's affairs and the school juristic person's funds which are not permitted for repayment.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Seocheon-Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Justice)