(b)the use of budget items and the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement;

(c) A case where it is deemed that no status relationship exists in the custody of an accomplice in occupational embezzlement;

B. In a case where a person in a position to execute a budget of a public organization uses the budget of other items which are not for his own interest, but enough time to fill the shortage of administrative expenses, the use of the budget itself has an unlawful purpose, or in a case where the use of the budget is strictly restricted, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be denied even if the disbursement has been made for the public organization, etc., the person in question, who is the principal. However, in a case where the disbursement can be permitted upon the request of a certain procedure due to the necessary expenses to be determined or received, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition, even if it is useful to fill the gap, even if it is intended to take administrative responsibility.

C. In addition to the face budget, the person who takes possession of the sports competition fund in custody with the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the face of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of

1. The portion on the preparation of false official document and its display

Each protocol of interrogation of the Defendants and the Nonindicted Party, who made the original statement, in the trial of the first instance, that the Defendants and the Nonindicted Party admitted the authenticity of each establishment on the date of the trial of the first instance. Also, it cannot be seen that the Nonindicted Party’s statement made in the prosecutor’s office in an unfair detention situation such as the theory of lawsuit, or that it was made in a particularly reliable state. Therefore, it is proper for the lower court to have found the Defendants guilty of preparing false public documents and the part of the event at the first trial to be reasonable in full view of the confession and its support at the prosecutor’s office of the Defendants and the Nonindicted Party and the Nonindicted Party, as well as the evidence at the time of the first trial, there was no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory, nor any omission of judgment, or insufficient deliberation. In addition, the crime of preparing false public documents is established if the Defendants knew that the contents were false in preparing false public documents, and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court stated that the Defendants paid front-time equipment or daily allowance to the dismissed party among the budget items of this case, but did not contain the aforementioned administrative document or the circumstances.

2. Part concerning occupational embezzlement

A. As to the first half part of the judgment of the court below

Since the crime of occupational embezzlement is a person who takes custody of another person's property in the course of business, it should first be confirmed that the defendant occupies the property in the course of business in order to establish this crime.

However, according to the evidence adopted in accordance with the part 1.b. of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that "Defendant 1, as a local administrative assistant, worked as a general manager in charge of accounting such as the receipt and disbursement of pre-do funds, etc. from October 1, 1981 to 1, 1981, and Defendant 2, as a local administrative assistant, was a person who served as a general accounting assistant for the above general accounting from November 4, 1983 to 1983. Thus, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, the above part 1, the court below acknowledged the fact that "the sum amounting to 5,784,397 won was withdrawn from the general accounting advance fund and embezzled voluntarily by consuming it from the general accounting advance fund, etc.", the defendants are punished as a crime of occupational embezzlement by applying Article 356

However, according to Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Financial Accounting Rules of High Reconstruction-gun (189 pages), the divisional collection officer, the divisional accounting officer, and the commodity management officer in Eup/Myeon under the provisions of Article 68 of the Local Finance Act shall be designated as the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong, the treasurer in charge of revenue and expenditure, and the treasurer in charge of revenue and expenditure shall be appointed as the general manager for the cash other than the revenue and expenditure as prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes or Municipal Ordinances and Municipal Rules (see Article 65 of the Local Finance Act) with respect to the cash other than the revenue and expenditure (see Article 65 of the Local Finance Act) as the treasurer in charge of revenue and expenditure as prescribed by the law or Municipal Ordinance, and the statement of the Defendants and the Nonindicted Party at the prosecutor's office shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the judgment of the court below, separate from the cases where the revenue and expenditure officer is deposited in the first unit of agricultural cooperative, who belongs to Gojin-gun-gun-gun-gun, with the approval of the prescribed bill of expenditure.

The issue that seems to be related to this point is reasonable.

In addition, an intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as in the case of his/her own property (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2698, Oct. 14, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Do2212, Jul. 8, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 82Do75, Sept. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Do75, Sept. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Do75, Sept. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do888, Sept. 14, 200).

According to the records, the defendants did not spend the budget received from the military as the item, but used it as entertainment expenses, tea tea value, food, and slope assistance to the relevant public officials or employees, expenses for purchasing office fixtures, expenses for office fixtures, expenses for repair, salary class employed outside the regular capacity, and private expenses of the Myeon, etc. Therefore, the court below should have recognized the criminal liability based on the number of embezzled amounts, by considering whether the defendants used the funds for the purpose other than the designated purpose, and whether the funds would be useful for the necessary expenses other than the designated area where the funds can be originally permitted, but not for the purpose other than for the designated purpose. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The related arguments are justified.

B. As to the second part of the judgment below:

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts at the time of Defendant 1’s establishment of the court below, and there is no illegality of misapprehending the rules of evidence or the legal principles of occupational embezzlement such as the theory of lawsuit.

However, even if the above defendant conspired with the non-indicted 1 for the crime of occupational embezzlement of this case, the punishment is serious due to the status relationship with which the defendant is responsible for the management of the business. According to the evidence adopted by the court below or the court of first instance, the non-indicted 1 collected money from the non-indicted 1 for the defendant's personal name separate from the budget of the first side and deposited with the non-indicted 1 for the defendant's personal name, and the defendant is only the non-indicted 1 for the business possession of the above sports competition fund, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the above defendant possessed it for the defendant 1 without such status relation. Thus, the defendant should be punished in accordance with the proviso of Article 35 (2) of the Criminal Act under the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1517, Oct. 28, 1986; 4294Da3966, Oct. 5, 1961).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the appeal as to the preparation of false official documents and the same uttering among the criminal facts of the Defendants, but there is a relation of substantive concurrent crimes, and there is a ground to reverse the remaining criminal facts for which conviction was pronounced together, so the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)