Whether embezzlement is established in the case of consuming out-of-the-counter equipment for purchase of futures

Even if the lawful use of part of the ex-out equipment for the purchase of gift was made, the disposal of the ex-out equipment is entrusted to the receiver, so it does not constitute embezzlement.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

1Military Command General Martial Law Council (Article 34)

We reverse the original judgment.

The defendant is innocent.

The gist of the defendant's appeal 1 is that the defendant, who was appointed as the chairperson of the Korea Mining Trade Union, was unable to lawfully obtain approval of the above branch office's 43th election campaign union (M.I.F) from 1979 to 30th of the month for the use of his official seal and equipment for the above 2,746,55 won (U.S. 5,63 U.S. 2) for the purpose of using the above 3th election campaign, and the defendant was unable to legally obtain approval of the above branch office's 43th election campaign, and thus, he was unable to obtain approval of the above 194,875 won (U.S. 375 U.S. 40) for the use of his official seal and equipment for the above 5th election campaign, and thus, he could not be deemed to have obtained approval of the above 3th election campaign for the use of the above 1st election campaign for the defendant's remaining in Korea, and thus, he could not be deemed to have recovered from the 5th election campaign.

Therefore, first of all, the defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the first ground of appeal, the court below acknowledged the fact that when the defendant takes a foreign business trip from June 1, 1979 to June 30, 1979 and calculates the withdrawal equipment, the withdrawal equipment up to KRW 1,00 shall be withdrawn from the association fee of May 29, 1979 to KRW 2,746,555 ($ 5,663), which was kept in custody, and then embezzled 521,375 won as stated in the judgment, such as the purchase cost of the gift and tourism expenses, and the sum of KRW 521,375 won as stated in the judgment below, compared with the evidence adopted to recognize the above fact, the court below determined the withdrawal equipment up to USD 1,00 for each consumption committee to USD 5,00,000 for 36,000 for 1,565,000 won and 36,000 won as stated in the judgment of the president of the mine trade union.

However, the above defendant stated that the above exit equipment was lawfully established, and thus, this point is the first time, the defendant's statement at the court below and the court below's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 7th trial court's 0th trial court's 6th trial court's 0th trial court's 6th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 0th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 0th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 6th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 6th trial court's 6th trial court's 10th trial court's 6th trial court's 6th trial court's 2th trial's 20th court's ruling's 10th trial's.

Therefore, the determination of the above exit equipment against the defendant is lawful. In the case where the plaintiff provided out-of-the-spot with out-of-the-counter equipment to the plaintiff, the disposition of the exit equipment shall be deemed to have been entrusted to the receiver, barring special circumstances, and as long as the determination of the above out-of-the-counter equipment against the defendant is lawful, it shall not be deemed to have embezzled some of the above payments for the purchase price of the gift as seen above, and according to the evidence from the above, it cannot be deemed that the defendant paid the above out-of-the-counter equipment to the extent that the defendant was able to go back to the way of returning to the country, and it cannot be deemed to have embezzled.

In addition, there is no other evidence to deem that the defendant unduly set and approved the withdrawal equipment in excess or embezzled some of them in view of records, so the above measures of the court below were recognized as facts without any evidence, or there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on embezzlement.

2. On August 10, 1979, according to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant easily aided and aided the defendant to commit the above counterfeit events by making the defendant use of the Korean mine trade union mobilization seat branch and the president of the Korean mine trade union who was forged for the purpose of the exercise by Nonindicted 7 at the Mining Trade Union's office and the president of the Korean mine trade union branch and by allowing Nonindicted 1 to act on behalf of the president of the branch office in the application for appointment of election management members, approval letter and approval letter and approval letter of election for the head of the branch office, respectively, as the president of the trade union, knowing that the defendant was aware of the fact, and by allowing the defendant to send it to the labor union branch and deliver it to the

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court below to find the above facts, each branch office of the mine trade union is required to appoint the head of the branch office acting on behalf of the non-indicted 3, who was elected on April 3, 1979, but the non-indicted 7, who was the head of the former branch, participated in the election but was in conflict with the above election but the non-indicted 7, who received the application for invalidation of the election, made a decision on May 8, 199 through the inquiry of the Korea Mining Union, and the non-indicted 8, who was the head of the current mining trade union, appointed the non-indicted 1 as the head of the above branch office on September 17, 197, and the non-indicted 3, who was the non-indicted 1, who was the head of the above branch office, replaced the official seal of the branch office with the non-indicted 1, who was the representative of the above branch office on behalf of the non-indicted 1, who was the head of the above branch office, and the defendant refused to transfer the above branch office and the non-indicted.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of uttering of a false seal, thereby finding facts without any evidence, and thus, the original judgment cannot be reversed.

3. According to the reasoning of the appeal, since the organization of the labor union branch was deepened by the court below, the court below acknowledged the defendant's non-indicted 2's oral statement that it was hard to recognize the defendant's non-indicted 3's oral statement that the defendant would not receive wages or activity expenses from the mining company or labor union leader during the same period from September 17, 1979 to November 15, and it was hard to find the defendant's oral statement that the non-indicted 2 would not receive wages or activity expenses from the above non-indicted 3's oral statement from the above 1979's oral statement and the non-indicted 3's oral statement that the non-indicted 3's oral statement was signed by the chairman of the labor union's office and the non-indicted 3's oral statement that the defendant would not receive wages from the above 19's oral statement and the defendant's oral statement that the defendant would not receive wages from the above 3's oral statement from the chairman of the labor union's office.

In other words, the non-indicted 2, who was appointed as a proxy for the head of the mobilization site from the nationwide mining labor union until September 17, 1979 to November 5, 1979, is unable to engage in mine labor due to the position of a person acting as a proxy for the head of the labor union for the same period. In addition, the non-indicted 3 could not receive wages from the mining company because he could not manage the union funds, etc. because he could not interfere with the exercise of the power on behalf of the head of the non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 2 could not receive the union funds, etc. as the head of the branch. The non-indicted 2 requested that the defendant, who is the chairman of the labor union, who was difficult due to the lack of living expenses due to the above circumstances, would find the defendant, who is the chief of the labor union for the above period, receive the payment of the amount equivalent to the wages during the above period, and this is recognized only by the fact that the defendant,

Therefore, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant recognized that he had currency with the above contents in order to prevent the division of the mobilization branch in the position of the labor union head and to resolve the complaint of the labor union members, and there was no intention to commit a crime of conflict, and there was no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in concluding it as a crime of conflict without evidence.

Therefore, the appeal of this case by the defendant is reasonable, and without determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant or by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is delivered after the pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that from May 1975, the defendant was the chairperson of the Korea Mining Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Mining Workers' Union").

1. When a foreign business trip was made from June 1, 1979 to 30 of the 43th E, A, E, E, and E, which shall be held in Spain, from June 1, 1979, to calculate the departure equipment, the foreign business operator calculated the departure equipment at USD 1,000 but, at the rate of 1,746,55 won ($ 5,63), from the partnership expenses kept in his office on May 29, 1979 to USD 2,746,55 won ($ 5,63) from the 30th day to the 30th day to the 5th day to the 10th day to the 10th day to the 5th day to the 10th day to the 5th day to the 20th day to the 10th day to the 187th day to the 20th day to the 187th day to the 375th day to the 20th day to the 37th day to the 14th 60th day to the 37th day.

2. On April 3, 1979, when Nonindicted 3 was elected at the election of the head of the mobilization branch, and Nonindicted 7 was elected, and when Nonindicted 7 was found to have a defect in the election, Nonindicted 7 submitted a luminous Labor Management Committee to determine the invalidity of the above election and ordered the re-election by commissioning Nonindicted 8, 3, 1, and 2 alternately with the above luminous Labor Management Committee on May 8, 199, Nonindicted 3 who supported the past Defendant to prepare an appeal against attacking the Defendant around June 20 of that year, and by mailing it to the luminous Labor Association, Nonindicted 7, an associate of the Defendant’s school, had been elected to the above head of the above branch and had the ability to support the Defendant, and he was able to approve the election with Nonindicted 7, who was aware of the fact that Nonindicted 7 was acting in the name of the above branch office on behalf of the head of the above branch office on August 10.

3. From September 17, 1979 to November 15, 1979, non-indicted 2 was commissioned to act on behalf of the president of a chapter from Manonono-o-o-de, and as the defendant was unable to receive wages from the company or mobilization branch during that period, the non-indicted 2 did not receive wages from the non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 2 was mobilized on December 1979, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 3, the chairman of the Mano-o-o-de office, and the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the defendant's office and the non-indicted 2, the defendant's office and the non-indicted 3, the defendant's office and the non-indicted 2, the defendant's office and the non-indicted 1, the defendant's office and the non-indicted 3, the defendant's office and the non-indicted 1, the defendant's office and the 2, the 1, the 2, the 3.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)