beta
(영문) 대법원 2017.11.23 2017도11811

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the fact that the withdrawal of the previous facts charged through the amendment of a bill of indictment and the addition of the new facts charged are possible, determination of whether the revised facts charged are included in the scope of a single comprehensive crime, namely, whether the revised facts charged are included in the scope of a single comprehensive crime under the single and continuous criminal intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do514, Apr. 27, 2006). 2. The records show the following circumstances according to the records.

A. At the first instance trial, the summary of the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter “Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes”) against the defendant is as follows.

(1) On January 4, 2011, the Defendant, as the representative director of G, embezzled KRW 2.4 billion by arbitrarily using KRW 7 billion in total three times from August 9, 201 to January 4, 2011, in collusion with J, etc., as part of the provision of security for the existing bonds owed by the bond-related company BA to the bank account in the name of the victim G while keeping KRW 2.4 billion in the proceeds of the purchase of the company’s stocks owned by the bank account in the name of the victim G, as part of the provision of security for the existing bonds owed by the bond-related company B, which is unrelated to the company, without undergoing a resolution for internal expenditure, etc. (hereinafter “the initial facts charged related to the G-related charges”), other than the embezzlement of KRW 2.4 billion by setting up a pledge on the said bank account in the above bank account (hereinafter “G-related charges”).

(2) On August 12, 2010, the Defendant, as the representative director of H, in collusion with J, etc., for the part related to the victim HH (hereinafter “H”), was the Defendant, and on August 12, 2010, the purchase price of H-owned M shares owned in the account of the victim H bank.