횡령
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The P Village in L at L is incorporated into a single administrative district (Z and N) with neighboring AC Village, but separately has the substance as an independent natural village, and it is not embezzlement even if the Defendants and co-defendants of the lower court, the P and AC Village, who are P and AC Village, were excluded from the n village (referring to the P and AC Village as a combination of P and AC Village; hereinafter the same shall apply) and disposed of 731mm2 (hereinafter “Am2”) of the O forest in leisure time, and R and forest 33,917m2 (hereinafter “the 2m2 forest of this case”) were the own property of the P Village jointly used by the aforementioned P and the 33,917m2 (hereinafter “the 2m2 forest of this case”), and even if they disposed of it on others, the crime of embezzlement is not established.
B. Although the P Village was integrated into a NC Village with a NC Village and its substance as an independent natural village becomes extinct, the forest Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, which was owned by the P Village prior to the integration, does not naturally belong to the N Village unless there is a legitimate general assembly resolution of the P Village residents, but still remains owned by the P Village. Even if the P Village was owned by NN, since the P Village was occupied for twenty (20) years by the P Village residents acquired prescription, it cannot be held embezzlement even if the Defendants arbitrarily disposed of.
C. In addition, even if the forest land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is owned by N Village, the Defendants merely left it as the ownership of P Village and disposed of it. Therefore, the Defendants did not have the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.
2. Determination
A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below.
(1) In the past, L was the name of the administrative district in Yongcheon-gun, Namcheon-gun, Jeoncheon-gun, Jeoncheon-gun on December 1, 1980, Jeoncheon-gun AE on January 1, 1986, Jeoncheon-si L on January 1, 198, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 5539, Jan. 1, 19