logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2013.12.12 2012도16315
횡령
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “C entered into a business agreement with the victim C C&P E&S E&S (hereinafter “victim”) and arrested and detained in a criminal case while operating a vehicle leasing agency by using a vehicle owned by the victim, the Defendant, the investor, entrusted the Defendant with the authority to operate the said vehicle leasing agency (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant transferred three vehicles owned by the victim (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) to his/her underground parking lot in the building where he/she had his/her office, and then embezzled it by refusing to return the instant vehicle even upon receiving a request from the employees of the victim for return of the instant vehicle.”

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment and acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it did not have any ground to deem that the Defendant was in the custodian of the instant vehicle in relation to the victim, unless the victim was aware of the delegation relationship between the Defendant and C, even though the Defendant was entrusted with the management of the office by C and the Defendant was aware of the fact that part of the proceeds was not remitted to the victim.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. The custody of the property in the crime of embezzlement refers to the actual or legal control over the property. Thus, the custody should be based on the consignment relationship, as well as the fact that it is not necessarily required to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc., and is also established by the office management, customs, cooking, and good faith principle.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1778 Decided October 13, 1987; 2003Do3840 Decided September 23, 2003; 2008Do4859 Decided September 11, 2008, etc.). B.

arrow