beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.01.16 2018고단1292

횡령

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Around August 11, 2009, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant was designated as the victim C’s guardian by his/her will on the designation of the guardian and the inheritance of property by his/her birth B, and that the Defendant opened a bank account (E) in the name of the victim at the lower branch of the D Bank on October 12, 2009.

The Defendant, using the foregoing account opened as above, received KRW 978,620 on October 25, 201 from the public official pension and the national pension that the victim was required to receive, and embezzled by arbitrarily using KRW 32,302,470 from that time until January 23, 2015 as indicated in the attached list of crimes, and used it for the purpose of living expenses.

2. According to Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, the facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 361 of the Criminal Act, where a person commits the instant crime among relatives not living together, the prosecution may be instituted only when the victim files a complaint.

The main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "no complaint shall be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the offender becomes aware of an offense subject to victim's complaint."

Meanwhile, Article 767 of the Civil Act stipulates that the relatives shall be “spouse, blood relatives and relatives by marriage” and Article 768 of the Civil Act defines “the sibling of a lineal ascendant” as collateral blood relatives, and includes the scope of relatives under Article 767 of the Civil Act.

According to the records of this case, the defendant is related to the victim C (hereinafter "victim") between B and his mother, and the victim was confined to juvenile reformatories and Juvenile Classification Review Board, etc. at the date stated in the list of offenses, and the victim was not living together with the defendant for that period. The victim confirmed that the defendant withdrawn and used money from the DNA bank account in his/her name as stated in the list of offenses, and prevented withdrawal of money around January 2016.