특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act") [2012 high-level 144] is not based on the defendant's personal purpose but due to the financial situation of two unions. Therefore, the defendant's act of paying funds from two unions for such purpose of use does not constitute embezzlement.
Since the defendant did not have sufficient time to pay union funds and did not go through the resolution of the general meeting of the union members and did not prepare a loan certificate corresponding to the expenditure or use the check, the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement.
The defendant's act of lending funds to the union does not constitute a breach of trust since he/she repaid funds to the defendant himself/herself or to another person within the short period.
The part of occupational breach of trust [2013 Gohap142] The defendant prepared a "written waiver of the right to sell the contract deposit" with the purport that "if AT renounces the right to sell the contract deposit, it shall return the contract deposit" because the defendant did not have any intention in breach of trust since the defendant made a "written waiver of the right to sell the contract deposit" with the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AU apartment No. 103 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").
In fact, since the above apartment house was sold at a price higher than the sale price to AT, it cannot be deemed that the damage to the G Union was caused by the preparation of a written waiver of sale right.
The purpose of the above-mentioned part is to confirm whether the authenticity of the waiver of the right to sell was established or not, of the fact that the Defendant directly affixed his/her signature and seal on the waiver of the right to sell, and of the attorney’s questioning whether the sealed official seal is the official seal officially used.