logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.07.16 2014노2551
업무상횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was in custody of KRW 30,443,835 of the Fund of the instant Scholarship Association (hereinafter “the Fund”) in the position of the president of the D Elementary School Scholarship Association (hereinafter “the instant Scholarship Association”). Since the validity of the resolution of the instant Scholarship Association that appointed G as the new president of the instant Scholarship Association on July 18, 2012 is null and void, the Defendant had justifiable grounds for refusing the return of the Fund.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal 1) “Refusal to return” under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner’s right against the stored goods. As such, the fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return does not constitute embezzlement merely by virtue of the fact that the custodian of another’s property refuses to return, and the act of refusal to return should be deemed to be the same as the act of embezzlement by taking account of the reasons for refusal to return and subjective intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2079, Nov. 27, 1992; 2008Do8279, Dec. 11, 2008). The intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intent of disposal, such as the ownership of another’s property in violation of his/her duties with the intent of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party. Even if there is an intention to return or compensate after being lawfully recorded in the evidence of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3154, Aug. 2019, 2054.

arrow