The case where it is deemed reasonable to have judged that the criminal intent cannot be recognized in embezzlement.

Even if the defendant has used the money temporarily kept from the business operators in the partnership expenses, it cannot be said that the defendant had the intent of embezzlement unless the board of directors of the association has the authority to make such a resolution, even though it is difficult for the defendant to believe that he/she had such authority, and that there is a justifiable reason to believe that he/she had such authority.

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Jeonju District Court Decision 68No632 Decided April 24, 1969; 68No632

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's ground of appeal in the former District Prosecutors' Office is examined.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the board of directors of Feb. 11, 1965 held that "in order to meet the source tax, part of the referral price of the original coal would be deducted from the provisional fund in order to use it for the source tax, and this money should not be an obstacle to the appropriation of the source tax on the next day, although the union is useful for the expenses." As pointed out, even if the board of directors of the above company did not have the right to make the above resolution, the court below made a reasonable decision that the defendants were able to have such right, and even if it was believed that there were justifiable reasons, it is difficult to view that the defendants had a criminal intent even if the defendants used the money temporarily stored from the above company's employees who driven the above resolution and used it for the union expenses, it is difficult to view that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the law as to the grounds for the above amendment of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above facts.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act by unanimous opinion of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet