(a) Changes in the status of an employee and responsibility of a guarantor;

(b) Whether the amount of taxes collected by a tax collector through temporary storage is deposited in a bank or public funds;

A. Even if a tax collector deposits the amount of tax collected in his/her personal name with a temporary storage method, it cannot be deemed that the nature of public funds would be immediately lost. Thus, the act of withdrawing and consuming the amount of tax collected, which a tax collector has deposited in a bank with a safe storage method, by misappropriation the seal of another public official who is well aware of this circumstance, cannot be deemed an unlawful act in relation to the duties of embezzlement of public funds.

B. The employee prior to the change of status, unless there exist other special circumstances, where the change of the status of the employee was changed according to the ordinary cases and the order, and the scope of his duties was not significantly changed.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity;

Korea

00 00 00 00

Seoul High Court Decision 60Hun-Gong65 delivered on October 28, 1960

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal are the same as the statement in the grounds of appeal.

Unless there are other special circumstances, it should be interpreted that there is no change in the guarantor's responsibility for employees before the change of status in accordance with the ordinary case and order, and in the absence of significant changes in the scope of their duties, barring any other special circumstances, it should be interpreted that there is no change in the guarantor's responsibility for employees before the change of status. Accordingly, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party 1 was employed as temporary clerks of a tax office and was appointed as temporary clerks and the appointing authority as temporary clerks and the scope of their duties is the same as the temporary clerks. Thus, the defendant's fidelity guarantee at the time of appointment as temporary clerks cannot be viewed as null and void as a matter of course because the non-party 1 was appointed as temporary clerks, and it cannot be concluded that the defendant's personal identity guarantee is null and void as a matter of course because the non-party 1 did not notify the guarantor of the change of status, and even if the tax collector collected by the tax collector was deposited in the bank as a temporary custody method, it cannot be viewed that the public funds were immediately lost and there is no error in the court's act of embezzlement.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)