[2] The case holding that a trade union's act of receiving limited funds from an employers' association to use them for the purchase and maintenance of part-time vehicles for the convenience of commuting to and from work of its members and managing them as the special account of the "vehicle Maintenance Expenses" of the above union and paying them as oil expenses to the union's union's husband, etc. constitutes occupational embezzlement, and even if the resolution for settlement of accounts was adopted at the representatives' conference

1. As to occupational breach of trust

Examining the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below and the court below in light of the records, it is justifiable to find the defendant 1 and 3 guilty of the crime of occupational breach of trust by taking full account of all the following circumstances, including: (a) the court below acknowledged by the recruitment evidence, namely, that only the executive staff who is the head of the division of the union, can use the funds of the association according to the order of the chairperson or the chairperson of the association; and (b) even according to the accounting rules of the association, there is no ground provision that the liaison director of the association can use the funds of the association; (c) the defendant 3 newly issued and issued the corporate card for the use of the funds of the association at the request of the defendant 1, who moved to the liaison director; and (d) the purpose of use and amount of the above corporate card used by the defendant 1 is not consistent with the location and amount of the funds of the association.

The court below did not err by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of occupational breach of trust, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal

2. As to occupational embezzlement

In cases where the use of funds is strictly limited to an organization such as a cooperative, etc., it shall not be denied the intent of unlawful acquisition because it itself has realized the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1901, Oct. 10, 1989; 92Do1915, Oct. 27, 1992). As shown in the facts duly established by the court below, the (name omitted) trade union receives from the (name omitted) loading and unloading association and prepares and operates a special account for the "vehicle maintenance cost" of the above union, while Article 39 of the accounting rules of the above union clearly provides that "special accounts cannot be diverted to general accounts", the act of paying the above funds to the union's members without using the funds for the limited purpose shall be realized as the profit of the union.

Furthermore, even if the above union can divert the "vehicle maintenance expenses" special account funds with the resolution of the representatives' meeting, the resolution of the representatives' meeting on the diversion of special account funds here refers to a prior resolution made prior to that diversion, and it cannot be deemed that the resolution was made subsequent to that diversion, and it cannot be deemed that there was an express prior resolution in the representatives' meeting on such diversion. However, it cannot be viewed that there was an explicit prior resolution in the representative's meeting on the record.

However, according to the records, the above union may hold a meeting of representatives at the time of conversion of funds of this case and resolve the budget bill for the immediately preceding fiscal year and immediately preceding fiscal year. However, in deliberating and resolving the budget bill, the above union did not notify general representatives of the fact that the above oil expenses for the union's portion were separately disbursed from the special accounts for the "vehicle Maintenance Expenses", and it merely divided the materials already examined by the operating committee into printed materials and decided to delegate its power to the committee with respect to the detailed contents or resolution. Even if it is based on the statement in the revenue and expenditure budget prepared and deemed to have been submitted to the representatives' meeting, it can be seen that the above oil expenses were only listed as part of the above "vehicle Maintenance Expenses" special accounts for the above "vehicle Maintenance Expenses" for the purpose of the special accounts, without distinguishing the above items from the total amount of the funds of this case, and it cannot be seen that there was a lack of sufficient understanding of the above special accounts' portion of the funds of dedicated funds from the above special accounts' funds' funds' funds' total after the establishment of the total amount without physical nature.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in finding the Defendants guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the criminal intent of embezzlement and the intention of unlawful acquisition, etc. contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal. This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

3. On the violation of the Employment Security Act

Defendant 2 filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the court below, but the violation of the Employment Security Act does not include any grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, nor find any grounds for appeal as to the grounds for appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)