업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
[Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal] In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
In the crime of embezzlement-related legal doctrine, “the custody of goods” refers to a state in which the actual or legal control over the goods is over, and the custody of the goods ought to be based on a consignment relationship; however, it is not necessarily required to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., and may also be established by administrative management, custom, cooking, and trust rules.
(1) In cases where a person entrusted with administrative affairs involving receipt of money receives money from a third party on behalf of the mandator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 201). The money received from the delegating person on behalf of the delegating person is deemed to belong to the delegating person at the same time as the money was received, barring any special circumstance otherwise, and the delegating person shall be deemed to possess the money at the same time, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have the relationship in which the delegating person keeps the delegated person’s custody for the delegating person, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have the relationship in which the money received from a third party on behalf of the delegating person on his/her behalf of the delegating person is not used in accordance with the purport of the delegation, and the appropriation of money to offset
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8939, Feb. 22, 2007). In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition is to dispose of another person’s property, which is in breach of one’s duty, and is in breach of one’s own property for the purpose of seeking one’s own or a third party’s interest.