Title of crime: Occupational Embezzlement

(b) Forgery of private documents;

(c) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(d) Occupational embezzlement;

2. Domine Domin

, however, the execution of the sentence shall be deferred for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

피고인 ○○○은 전국공무직노동조합 본부와 ◆◆시지부 사무처장을 겸직하면서 위 노동조합의 회계 및 경리업무 등 사무를 총괄하는 업무에 종사하는 사람이고, 피고 인 ●●●은 위 전국공무직노동조합 본부장과 ◆◆시지부장을 겸직하면서 위 노동 조합의 전반적인 업무를 총괄하는 업무에 종사하는 사람이다.

1. Defendant 1 ○○

(a) Occupational embezzlement;

(1) 피고인은 2005. 1.경부터 전국공무직노동조합 본부 산하 ◆◆시지부 등 6 개 지부 소속 무기계약직 공무원들로부터 1인당 매월 25,000원 또는 30,000원 상당의 조합비를 납부받아 운영되는 위 노동조합의 회계 및 경리업무 등 사무처리에 종사하면 서, 소속 조합원들이 조합비에 대한 회계 및 경리업무 처리에 대하여 잘 알지 못하는 점을 이용하여 피고인 명의의 위 조합비 입금용 농협은행계좌를 만들어 위 계좌로 위 조합비가 입금된 직후 대부분 현금으로 인출하거나 피고인 개인 명의의 다른 농협은행 계좌 등으로 계좌이체 또는 입금하여 피고인 개인자금과 혼용하여 현금입출금 또는 계 좌이체 방식으로 위 조합비를 개인용도로 사용하고, 위 조합비 집행에 대한 영수증 처 리 등 지출증빙자료를 갖추지 아니하여 위 조합비의 회계처리를 파악할 수 없도록 하 는 방식으로 위 조합비를 횡령하기로 마음먹고, 2005. 5. 2.경 ◆◆시에 있는 전국공무 직노동조합 본부 및 ◆◆시지부 사무실에서, 위 조합원들로부터 조합비를 피고인 명의의 조합비 입금용 위 농협은행계좌로 입금받아 위 조합을 위하여 업무상 보관하던 중 같은 날 피고인 개인 명의의 농협은행계좌로 300,000원을 이체하여 그 무렵 피고인 의 여동생 □□□에게 송금하여 임의 사용한 것을 비롯하여 2005. 1. 18.경부터 2013. 10. 29.경까지 사이에 조합비 합계 808,886,701원을 조합을 위하여 업무상 보관하던 중 ◆◆시내 등지에서 별지 범죄일람표(1) 내지 ( 16) 기재와 같이 총 1,245회에 걸쳐 현금 으로 인출하거나 피고인 개인 명의의 다른 농협은행계좌 등으로 계좌이체 또는 입금한 다음 피고인의 개인생활비, 대출금 상환, 카드대금 납부, 보험금 납부, 전화요금 납부, 개인차량구입비 등 사적 용도로 임의 사용하여 합계 491,508,873원을 횡령하였다 .

(2) 피고인은 위 노동조합의 조합비를 위와 같이 조합을 위하여 업무상 보관하던 중 위 ●●●의 개인차량 구입에 대한 할부금을 결제하는데 임의로 사용하기로 위 ● ●●과 공모하여, 2008. 3.경 서울 이하 불상지에 있는 ■■■ 운영의 상호불상의 자동 차 중고매매상사에서, 호♠♠ 자동차를 할부로 구입한 후 위와 같이 조합원 들로부터 납부받은 조합비를 업무상 보관하던 중 2008. 4. 15.경 위 ●●● 명의의 자 동차 구입에 대한 할부금으로 277,323원을 결제함으로써 사적 용도로 임의 사용한 것 을 비롯하여 그 때부터 2011. 3. 15.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표(17) 기재와 같이 총 38회에 걸쳐 사적 용도로 임의 사용하여 합계 9,993,227원을 횡령하였다.

(b) Forgery of private documents;

(1) 피고인은 2013. 9 . 하순경부터 같은 해 10. 30.경까지 사이에 ◆◆시에 있는 전국공무직노동조합 본부 및 ◆◆시지부 사무실에서 , 조합비 회계자료를 요구하는 조합원들에게 허위로 조합비 사용내역을 공개할 목적으로, 그곳에 설치되어 있는 컴퓨 터를 이용하여, 피고인이 예금주인 농협은행통장에 대한 거래내역을 농협은행에서 마 치 정상적으로 발급한 것처럼 '저축예금(02)거래명세표'라는 제목으로, 예금주 '○○○', 발행일 '2013. 11. 01. 10:15:23', 기관명 '농협은행', 관리점 ' 영업부', 조회기간 '2005.01.02.~2013.9.30.', 발행점 '◆◆시청 〈출 ) ' 등 입력하여 거래명세표 표지를 작성 하고, 위 표지 뒷장에 거래내역 중 거래일자란에 '2005-01-25', 찾으신금액란에 '▼▼ ▼', 맡기신금액란에 '30,000', 남은금액란에 '2,575,350', 내용란에 '대체', 거래점란에 '[0111001180'이라고 허위로 각 입력하는 방법 등으로 2005. 1. 25.부터 2013. 9. 17. 까 지의 거래내역을 입력한 다음 이를 A4 용지에 출력하여 사실증명에 관한 사문서인 농 협은행 명의의 저축예금거래명세표 1부를 위조하였다.

(2) 피고인은 2013. 9. 하순경부터 같은 해 10 . 30.경까지 사이에 위 전국공무직 노동조합 본부 및 ◆◆시지부 사무실에서, 조합비 회계자료를 요구하는 조합원들 에게 허위로 조합비 사용내역을 공개할 목적으로, 그곳에 설치되어 있는 컴퓨터를 이 용하여 , 위 ●●● 이 예금주인 농협은행통장에 대한 거래내역을 농협은행에서 마치 정 상적으로 발급한 것처럼 '저축예금(02)거래명세표 '라는 제목으로, 예금주 '●●●',발행 일 '2013. 11. 01. 10:15:23', 기관명 '농협은행', 관리점 ' 영업부', 조회기간 '2008.01.02.~2013.11.01.', 발행점 '◆◆시청 〈출 ) ' 등 입력하여 거래명세표 표지를 작 성하고, 위 표지 뒷장에 거래내역 중 거래일자란에 '2008-01-03', 찾으신금액란에 ' 쇼 ♤♤', 맡기신금액란에 '1,950,000', 남은 금액란에 '1,950,000', 내용란에 '대체'라고 허위 로 입력하는 방법 등으로 2008. 1. 3.부터 2013 . 9. 30.까지의 거래내역을 입력한 다음 이를 A4 용지에 출력하여 사실증명에 관한 사문서인 농협은행 명의의 저축예금거래명 세표 1부를 위조하였다.

(c) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

피고인은 2013. 11. 1. 15:00경 ◆◆시에 있는 지방경찰청 광역수사대 사무실 에서, 그 위조사실을 모르는 피고인에 대한 횡령 사건을 수사 중이던 경사 BBB에게 제1의 나항과 같이 위조한 농협은행 명의의 저축예금거래명세표 2부를 마치 진정하게 성립한 문서인 것처럼 각각 교부하여 이를 행사하였다 .

2. The defendant Do governor;

In collusion with the above ○○○○, the defendant is a personal vehicle of the defendant, such as Paragraph 1-A(2).

호 ♠♠♠ 차량을 구입하면서 위 ○○○이 제1의 가(2)항과 같이 조합을 위하여 업무 상 보관 중이던 조합비를 2008. 4. 15.경부터 2011. 3. 15.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일 람표(17) 기재와 같이 총 38회에 걸쳐 피고인 명의의 자동차 구입에 대한 할부금 결제 에 사적 용도로 임의 사용하여 합계 9,993,227원을 횡령하였다 .

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant ○○○: Articles 356, 355(1) (including each embezzlement made at the time of sale), 356, and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including each embezzlement made at the time of sale); Article 231 of the Criminal Act (a) and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (including each embezzlement made at the time of sale)

(b) Dou-gu Dou-gu, Defendant 1: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant ○○○: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment on the crime of uttering of each of the above investigation documents, and punishment specified on the crime No. 1-B (1) of the Criminal Act as stated in the holding that the crime is no longer committed)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○○: The penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the most severe punishment and criminal punishment) is more severe than the penalty provided for in Article 1-A(1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

Judgment on each of the defendants and defense counsel's arguments

1. Determination on Defendant ○○○ and the defense counsel’s assertion

A. The assertion

Defendant ○○ did not embezzled the following parts.

① In the case of the annexed crime No. 1 of the annexed crime list (1), No. 4,00,000 per annum (in the case of the check of January 18, 2005), the members of the Do government affiliated with the Do government, which had decided to share the Do○○ Public Service Trade Union at the time, establish a separate trade union, and the defendant returned the above money to the Do government labor union (branch), and is not embezzled.

② On January 25, 2006, the Defendant used the above KRW 1,40,000 at the expense of the general meeting of shareholders in the commercial union in 2005, held on January 25, 2006, No. 61, and No. 62 (in the case of two withdrawals on January 25, 2006) in the crime list of crimes as indicated in the judgment.

③ On March 29, 2006, the Defendant used the said money at the cost of the local direct trade union launch ceremony and the Hanmam Sports Games held on March 29, 2006, from No. 77 to 82, Mar. 29, 2006, in the case of the crime list (1) No. 77 to 82, Mar. 29, 2006.

④ On March 24, 2008, the Defendant purchased office fixtures at a comprehensive bank room (on March 24, 2008, KRW 130,400) No. 296 per annum (1) of the crime committed as indicated in the judgment, and paid the money for its non-use.

⑤ In the case of No. 303, Apr. 8, 2008, the Defendant used the said money at the expense of a representative meeting for preparation for a compromise held on April 8, 2008, in the case of the crime list No. 303, Apr. 150, 2008.

⑥ 판시 범죄사실 별지 범죄일람표(16)은 증거기록 별책 제9권의 통장거래내역 중 피고인이 지부 ♨♨♨로부터 입금받은 조합비 내역을 모두 범죄사실로 특정하였는 바, 피고인은 2012. 4. 13. 4, 126,700원을 2012년도 ◆◆시장 표창대상자 여행비(제주 도, 2012. 4. 18. ~ 2012 . 4. 20.)로 지출(베스트여행사)하고, 2012. 4. 26. 6,900,000원 을 인출하여 다음날 지역상용직노조원 단합대회(강원도)를 개최하는데 필요한 경 비로 사용하였다.

7. List of crimes (1) No. 738, Jul. 31, 2012; 2,000,000 won; 739,00 won per annum (transfer to Defendant’s benefit passbook of KRW 4,00,000); 760,00 (transfer to Defendant’s benefit passbook of KRW 3,00,000) No. 760, Oct. 21, 2013; 30.3,00,000 won per annum No. 761, Oct. 2, 2013; 20.3,000 won per annum; 3,00,000 won per annum No. 70. 70,00 won per annum; 3,000,000 won per annum; 3,000,000 won per annum; 2,03,000 won per annum No. 973,5,000 won per annum under Defendant’s name.

⑧ 판시 범죄사실 별지 범죄일람표(1) 연번 408번(2008. 10. 24. 100,500원 현금으 로 인출), 연번 409번(2008. 10. 24. 500,000원 현금으로 인출), 연번 410번 (2008. 10 . 24. 400,000원 현금으로 인출) 의 경우 같은 날 피고인의 급여통장에서 노조 총무직원 國國岡의 급여로 지급되었다.

⑨ 판시 범죄사실 별지 범죄일람표(1) 연번 671번 (2011. 6. 23. 1,000,000원 피고인 명의의 급여계좌로 이체), 연번 672번(2011. 7. 6. 700,000원 피고인 명의의 급여계좌 로 이체) 의 경우 2011. 7. 5. 노조 총무직원 玄玄玄의 급여로 지급되었다(피고인은 자 신의 급여통장으로 먼저 조합비를 지출한 후에 조합비 통장에서 급여통장으로 이체하 거나 현금으로 인출한 후 급여통장에 입금하는 방식으로 조합비를 사용한 경우도 있 고 , 반대로 조합비 통장에서 급여 통장으로 미리 돈을 옮겨 놓은 후 급여통장에서 조 합비를 지출한 경우도 있어 조합비 통장과 급여통장의 이체 거래 내역 등의 날짜가 정 확하게 일치하지 않는다).

1. ① From 205 to 20 October 20, 2013, the amount that the Defendant left at the partnership’s expense is KRW 712,678,239, and the amount that the Defendant properly spent for the partnership during the said period is KRW 619,762,308, and thus, KRW 92,915,931, the difference in each of the above amounts, should be deemed as the amount of embezzlement.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

(A) The prosecutor must prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such doubt, even if there is doubt about the defendant's conviction, the defendant's interest should be judged. However, even if there is no doubt about the defendant's conviction, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was dead using funds in the place of use claimed by the defendant, such as failure to explain the location or location of the defendant, or disclosure that the funds used in the place of use claimed by the defendant were appropriated for other funds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do457, Mar. 14, 200; 9Do457, Apr. 27, 200). If reliable evidence on this issue exists, it can be inferred that the defendant embezzled the above funds with the intent of acquiring unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do457, Mar. 14, 2000).

(B) In the crime of embezzlement in the course of occupational embezzlement, the intent of embezzlement or illegal acquisition is not sufficient if there is a perception that disposal of another person’s property in violation of his/her occupational duty is owned by himself/herself or a third party for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of himself/herself or it does not necessarily require an intent to take economic benefits or obtain it by himself/herself. On the other hand, as the disposal act was conducted on his/her own interest, whether the intent of illegal acquisition is recognized should be determined by taking into account the purpose of the entrustment, purpose and method of the disposal, and purpose of the disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9339, Apr. 24, 2008). Even if the act is returned after the return or compensation is intended, there is no head in recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005).

(2) Determination as to the denial of the non-Embezzlement

(A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are as follows: ① Do branch has withdrawn from the headquarters of the National Association of Public-Private Partnership in the year from 2010 to 2011; ② ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ also requested the Defendant to return the association fees at the time of withdrawal, but the Defendant could not return the association fees; ③ ○○○○○○○○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2).

(B) According to the records and records, as to the crime list (1) No. 61 and No. 62 (2) per annum No. 700,500 on January 25, 2006, each of 500 won shall be deemed to be a fee to be a withdrawal fee), the records are as follows.

On January 25, 2006, the general meeting of regional commercial union members seems to have been held in the cover of the long-term housing unit located in the building with respect to about 16:00 to 19:00 on January 25, 2006. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are as follows: ① the Defendant’s withdrawal of KRW 70,000 on January 25, 2006 in two occasions, on January 26, 2006, in the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number: 1181-12-002082) in the name of the Defendant (Account Number: 600,000 won), which is part of the above money, were not considered to have been used at the expense of the above general meeting; ② the Defendant did not have any personal account book such as embezzlement or embezzlement of part of the personal fund, and ③ did not have any personal account book to be used until now.

(C) According to the health records and records as to the crime table (1) to 82 of the annexed crime table (6-time withdrawals from March 29, 2006) in the attached crime table (1) to 77 of the annexed crime list (6-time withdrawals from March 29, 2006). However, the following circumstances are found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court: ① the defendant used the above association funds for personal use by mixing them with the funds of the defendant, such as withdrawing the association funds from the association funds at the time of deposit funds or transferring them to another account under the name of the defendant; ② the defendant did not have any evidentiary documents, such as receipts, etc., or failed to prepare a book of account; ② the defendant did not have any objective evidence to use the funds, such as the defendant's withdrawal of the funds from the association funds at the time; and ② the defendant did not have any money to use the funds from March 29, 2006.

(D) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court as follows: (i) the above 130,400 won was remitted to the Defendant’s female Magdong Magsung on March 24, 2008; (ii) the simple receipt that appears to have been issued after the fact cannot be an objective supporting material for the place of use; and (iii) the Defendant did not submit objective supporting material for the place of use until then, it can be recognized that this part of the money was embezzled.

(E) According to the health records and records of the crime list No. 303, Apr. 8, 2008 (the cash withdrawal of KRW 150,000, Apr. 8, 2008) as indicated in the judgment, the representative meeting for the preparation for the union is held on Apr. 8, 2008. However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court. i.e., the defendant used the union funds for personal purposes by mixing them with the funds of the recipient, such as (i) withdrawal in cash after the deposit of the union funds into the union funds account at the time, or transfer of funds to another account under the name of the defendant, etc.; (ii) the defendant did not have evidence of disbursement, such as partial receipts, or failed to prepare account books, and (iii) the specific defendant did not have objective evidence of proof against the use facilities up to now.

( 바) 판시 범죄사실 별지 범죄일람표(16 ) 기재 조합비 중 일부를 ◆◆시장 표창 대상자 여행비, ◇◇지역상용직노조원 단합대회 개최비용으로 지출하였다는 주장에 관 하여 보건대, 기록에 의하면, 피고인이 피고인 명의의 급여통장으로 사용하는 농협계좌 (계좌번호 1180- 12-019298)에서 2012 . 4. 13. 베스트여행사에 2012년도 ◆◆시장 표창 대상자 여행비로 4, 126,700원을 송금하였고, 2012. 4. 26. 6,900,000원을 인출하여 그 중 일부를 지역상용직노조원 단합대회(강원도) 개최비용으로 사용한 것으로 보이 나 , 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 사정 즉, ① 피고 인은 2005. 1. 4. 개설된 조합비 입금용 계좌가 따로 있음에도 불구하고 지부 사무 장 ♨♨♨에게 위 피고인 명의의 급여통장 계좌번호로 조합비를 송금하게 한 다음 그 돈을 바로 조합비 입금용 계좌로 이체하거나 입금하지 않고 전처 ①00에게 송금하는 등 모두 개인용도로 사용한 점, ② 피고인은 지부 조합비를 조합의 감사대상이 아 닌 위 피고인 명의의 급여통장 계좌로 지급받음으로써 이를 언제든지 피고인의 임의 대 로 사용하거나 처분이 가능한 상태로 만든 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고 인의 불법영득의사는 피고인이 ♨♨♨에게 ⅢⅢ지부 조합비를 위 피고인 명의의 급여 통장 계좌로 입금하게 한 시점에 객관적으로 명백히 표현되었다고 볼 수 있고, 지 부 조합비를 위 피고인 명의의 급여통장 계좌로 이체받음으로써 이미 손해발생의 위험 을 초래하여 횡령죄가 기수에 이른 것이므로, 피고인이 그 중 일부를 조합을 위하여 사용하였다고 하더라도 횡령죄의 성립에 지장이 없으며, 이는 횡령한 금액의 소비 방법 에 지나지 아니하므로, 피고인이 이 부분 돈을 횡령하였음을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다.

(G) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's above 10.3 billion won was 70.00 won per annum 738 (1.2,00,000 won per annum, 200 won per annum, 10.20 won per annum, 30 won per annum, 200 won per annum, 30 won per annum (20 won per annum, 30 won per annum under the name of the defendant's own name) and 760 (3,000,000 won per annum 20.3 won per annum, 200 won per annum, 30 won per annum and 90 won per annum, 200 won per annum, 30 won per annum and 40 won per annum, 30 won per annum and 90 won per annum, 20 won by the defendant's own account under the name of the defendant's own name of 40,000 won per annum, 200 won per annum and 9.3

(h) According to public health records as to the list of separate crimes (1) No. 408 per annum (1), No. 409 per annum No. 208 (10,500 per annum October 24, 2008), No. 409 (50,000 won per annum October 24, 2008), and No. 410 per annum (40,000 won in cash). The defendant's transfer of 1,00,000 won from his benefit account under the name of the defendant to the State on October 24, 2008 to 00 won, but the defendant's transfer of 0,000 won to 1,00,000 won from his own account under the name of 10,000 won under the name of 20,000 won under the name of the defendant's association or 20,000 won under the name of 40,000 won under the name of his own account.

(i) According to the health records and records as to the crime list (1) No. 671 per annum (transfer to the salary account under the name of the deceased person) and No. 672 per annum (transfer to the salary account under the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in July 6, 2011), the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 1,700,000 to the △△△△△△△△△ on July 5, 201, although it is recognized that the defendant lawfully adopted this court and investigated the evidence, in other words, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2307, Jun. 23, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 17000, Jun. 23, 2011>

It has already been used as living costs, such as mobile phone charges, before remitting money to a person. 2

의 급여가 1,200,000원임에도 피고인은 ÀÅÀ에게 2011. 7. 5. 1,700,000원, 2011. 7. 13. 600,000원, 2011. 7. 28. 1,500,000원 합계 3,800,000원을 송금하였는바, 피고인이 玄玄玄의 급여라고 주장하는 위 1,700,000원이 급여인지, 아니면 玄玄玄 사이의 채권채 무관계에 기한 돈인지 알 수 없는 점, ③ 가사 위 1,700,000원이 玄玄玄의 급여라고 하 더라도, 조합 규약(전국공무직노동조합 규약 ) 제45조에 '조합자산의 관리 또는 처분은 대의원대회의 결의에 따라 위원장이 집행한다' 고 규정되어 있고, 피고인의 채권 존재 및 범위가 명확하지 않은 상태이므로, 피고인은 위와 같은 절차를 거쳐 채권 변제 명 목으로 조합비 입금용 계좌에서 돈을 인출하여야 함에도 그와 같은 절차를 거치지 않 고 임의로 현금을 인출한 점 및 그 밖에 위 돈의 인출시기와 금액 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 이 부분 돈을 횡령하였음을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다 .

(j) As to the assertion that the amount of embezzlement is unfair, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant used the association funds for personal purposes by mixing it with the Defendant’s personal funds by withdrawing most immediately after the deposit of the union funds into the account for deposit of the union funds in cash or transferring it to another account in the name of the Defendant’s personal account, etc.; ② the Defendant did not have any documentary evidence, such as receipts, or did not prepare an account book; ② the Defendant did not submit objective documentary evidence regarding the portion that the funds were properly disbursed for the union up to now. In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not acceptable.

2. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant Do governor and defense counsel

(1) The argument

피고인은 피고인의 중고차 매입을 위임받은 공동피고인 OOO에게 호소 ♠♠ 차량 대금 명목으로 7,000,000원을 지급하였는데, 공동피고인 ○○○이 위 7,000,000원을 사용하고, 그 차량대금을 피고인 명의로 대출받아 그 할부금을 대신 변 제하겠다고 하여, 피고인은 이를 승낙하였을 뿐 이 사건 업무상횡령을 공모하거나 이 에 가담한 사실이 없다.

(2) Determination

살피건대, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 공동피고인 ○○○은 수사기관에서 이 법정에 이르기까지 피고인과 사이에 피고인의 개인 차량 ♠♠♠ 구입대금 1,200만 원 내지 1,300만 원을 300만 원 내지 500만 원은 현금으로 지급하고, 나머지 800만 원은 할부로 구입하기로 하되, 그 할부대금은 피고인에게 지급되는 활동비로 납부하기로 한 다음 피고인으로부터 위임받 아 피고인 명의의 농협계좌를 개설하고, 중고차 할부금융약정서를 작성하였으며, 피고 인으로부터 받은 300만 원 내지 500만 원을 중고차 매매상에게 지급하였다고 일관되 게 진술하고 있고, 피고인의 인감증명서 발급일자, 피고인 명의의 농협계좌 개설일 , 중 고차 할부금융약정서 작성일자 , 중고차 매매상인 ■■■의 진술 등도 위 진술에 부합 하는 등 위 진술의 신빙성이 있는 점, ② 피고인도 수사기관에서 공동피고인 ○○○과 사이에 위 ♠♠♠ 차량을 구입하기 전부터 위와 같은 방법으로 차를 구입하는 것에 대 해 이야기를 한 적은 있다고 진술한 점, ③ 피고인은 2005년경부터 지역상용직노 동조합 집행부 회의에 따라 공동피고인 ○○○로부터 집행부운영비(활동비) 명목으로 매월 200,000원 내지 300,000원을 지급받아왔는데, 위 ♠♠♠ 차량 할부금이 결제되는 2008. 4.부터 2011. 3.까지는 위 돈을 지급받지 않다가 2011. 4. 29.부터 피고인 명의의 계좌로 위 돈을 송금받거나 현금으로 지급받은 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 위 집행부운영비 (활동비)는 그 용도 자체가 특정되어 있지 않더라도 업무와 관련하여 지출되어야 하는 것이므로 업무와 관련 없이 개인적인 이익을 위하여 지출되어서는 아니되는 점, ⑤ 피 고인은 개인 차량으로 위 ♠♠♠ 차량을 할부로 매입한 것인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피 고인이 공동피고인 ○○○과 공모하여 이 부분 돈을 횡령하였음을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant 1 ○○

Defendant ○○○○ uses a part of the union funds collected from union members, who are daily workers, for a long time through the position of the head of the union’s secretariat, private use of the union funds, and interferes with the accounting audit for a long time by putting out the accounting data containing false details of expenditure on the member’s request for disclosure of accounting data, or neglecting the request. In order to avoid the instant cross-government crime, the crime is not very good, such as forging the payment passbook account in the name of the Defendant and the statement of transactions in the agricultural bank account in the name of Co-Defendant ○○○ in the name of Co-Defendant ○○. The amount of embezzlement is not less than KRW 50 million, and the Defendant appears to have never made efforts to recover from damage. Considering the fact that the Defendant appears to have made efforts to improve the working conditions of union members, it is inevitable to sentence sentence imposed on the Defendant, given that there is no particular criminal record other than a fine, Defendant appears to have made efforts to do so in full view of the following circumstances: the sentencing guidelines and sentencing of the Defendant, etc.

2. The defendant Do governor;

The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed in collusion with co-defendant ○○○, and the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant denies the crime of this case by Co-defendant ○○○’s sole criminal act, and seems not to make efforts to recover damage, etc.; unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant’s primary offender; the defendant appears to have been misunderstanding that the defendant used activity expenses for private purposes; favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant seems to have made efforts to improve the conditions in favor of the union members; other circumstances such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc.; and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, etc. shall be determined as set forth in the order.

Part of Innocence (Defendant 000)

1. Summary of a public action against Defendant 00 on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as stated in Section 1-A of the facts charged in the judgment.

2. Determination,

Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "amount of profit") is subject to aggravated punishment when a person who commits a specific property crime has acquired or had a third party acquire as a result of an offense is more than 500 million won. The "amount of profit" in this context refers to the sum of the amount of profit when a simple crime is established or a single crime is established, and the "amount of profit" refers to the sum of the amount of profit when a crime is punished as a concurrent crime, and it does not mean the sum of the amount of profit in a crime that can be punished as a concurrent crime. In order to constitute a single crime by combining several business embezzlements, the profit of the crime is identical, the form of the crime is identical, and it should be recognized as a series of acts due to the realization of the intention of a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8265, Jul. 28, 201).

With respect to this case, the public prosecutor deemed that the act of occupational embezzlement as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the crime as stated in the judgment constitutes one crime of occupational embezzlement and brought a public prosecution against the defendant. However, the attitude of embezzlement as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the crime as stated in the judgment is that the defendant withdraws cash for his own interest or transfers money to the defendant's side, and the attitude of embezzlement as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the crime as stated in the judgment in collusion with the co-defendant 1-A of the crime as stated in the judgment was remitted money to the co-defendant 1-A of the crime in conspiracy with the co-defendant 1-A of the crime as stated in the judgment. The mere fact that the legal interest is the same, it is difficult to view that the crime is a case where one crime is constituted by combining the occupational embezzlement as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 1-A of the crime as stated in the judgment and the occupational embezzlement as stated in

Therefore, even if the defendant committed an occupational embezzlement as stated in the above facts charged, the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in Article 1-A (1) of the facts charged and the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in Article 1-A (2) of the facts charged are not a single crime but a concurrent crime.

Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of the crime. However, the above facts charged include the facts charged for the crime of occupational embezzlement, so long as the defendant is found guilty of each of the above crimes of occupational embezzlement within the scope of the same facts charged, it shall not be sentenced not to

Kim Jong-hee

Park Jong-jin