Details of the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement

The intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another's property, such as his own property, which is kept in breach of his/her duties, for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do75 Decided September 13, 1983

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Sang-won (Attorney Kim Sang-won et al., Counsel for the defendant)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No2141 delivered on June 18, 1985

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-indicted 1 corporation is a company of 60,00,000 won in capital at the time of the above government office with the purpose of lending business, the non-indicted 1 corporation was a joint representative director with the non-indicted 2, the defendant 2 was a director, and the defendant 2 was a person on the day of the above case. The defendant et al. consulted on the issue of handling the appeal case together with the lectures, which are the head office of the company driving by the defendant 2, and delivered 420,000 won for the payment of part of the public charges from his 20,000 won to his 0,000 won for the above 0,000 won for the purpose of the above 0,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 0,000 won for the defendant's own money and 0,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above case's own money supply on the date.

However, the intention of illegal acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement is a party member's view that it is an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party as his/her own property (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do75, Sep. 13, 1983). Even though 420,000 won of the above money is paid for vehicle oil prices, domestically, transportation expenses, and expenses for filing a petition, etc. when the company's public fund is made, it shall not be deemed that the person has the intention of obtaining unlawful acquisition, and if it is consumed as miscellaneous expenses, it shall not be deemed that the person has the intention of obtaining unlawful acquisition. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention of obtaining unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)