횡령
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that most of the operating expenses of the victim C (hereinafter “the main meeting”) are financed with subsidies, and the operating expenses of the main meeting should be used in compliance with the purpose of the establishment of the plenary session, and the resolution of the board of directors adopted only for the benefit of the existing members immediately before the opening of the main meeting is unreasonable. Therefore, the execution of the funds pursuant to the above resolution cannot be deemed legitimate as a matter of course, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A, from around 2008 to March 19, 2016, represent the principal meeting as the president of the main meeting and took overall charge of its operation and meetings. Defendant B, who assisted the president of the main meeting from around 2012 to March 19, 2016, was in charge of the affairs and finance of the plenary session, and the Defendants operated and managed the membership fee of the plenary session.
From March 19, 2016 to April 25, 2018, the Defendants arbitrarily used KRW 8,060,000,000, out of KRW 12,335,000 of the membership fees of this time, and did not transfer the remainder of KRW 9,35,000, while the Defendants took charge of new enforcement departments, such as D and E, as the president of the principal conference, around March 19, 2016.
As a result, the Defendants embezzled the property of the victim under custody in collusion.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) regardless of whether before or after March 2016, the instant association managed subsidies and membership fees as one passbook and used them as operating expenses; and (b) subsidies as the principal operating expenses.