[1] The relation to the attribution of money that a person delegated to handle affairs with the receipt and receipt of money received from a third party for the delegating person based on the act

[2] The case holding that the crime of occupational embezzlement is established in case where a theater operator who collected a culture and arts promotion fund together with an admission fee makes a voluntary consumption of the fund

[1] The amount of money received by a person delegated with administrative affairs involving the receipt and receipt of money from a third party for the delegating person based on such act shall be deemed to belong to the delegating person’s possession at the same time with the receipt of the money, barring any special circumstance, as in the same manner as the money was entrusted for the delegating person, and the delegating person shall be deemed to have the relationship

[2] The case holding that the crime of occupational embezzlement is established on the ground that the extreme manager who received the Culture and Arts Promotion Fund as well as the admission fee under the Culture and Arts Promotion Act is in the position of the person who is in the custody of the Fund for the Korean Culture and Arts Promotion Institute, and if he did not manage it separately, and used at his own discretion for the purpose of mixing it with his deposit passbook and operating funds, etc.

[1] Articles 355 and 356 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 355 and 356 of the Criminal Act, Article 19 of the Culture and Arts Promotion Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do371 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1826) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1923 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 302) Supreme Court Decision 96Do106 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2277)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Cho Soo-chul

Seoul District Court Decision 96No6040 delivered on November 13, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The money received by a person delegated with the administration of affairs that entails the receipt of money from a third party for the delegating person based on such act shall belong to the delegating person's ownership at the same time with the receipt of the money, barring any special circumstances, such as the money entrusted for the purpose or purpose, and the delegated person shall be deemed to have the relation of keeping the money in custody for the delegating person (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Do106, Jun. 14, 1996; 95Do1923, Nov. 24, 1995, etc.).

The court below determined that the Culture and Arts Promotion Fund, based on the evidence indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance, refers to the fund-raising from users of performance halls, museums, art galleries, designated cultural properties, etc. with the approval of the Minister of Culture and Sports pursuant to Article 7 of the Culture and Arts Promotion Act (the provision on the fund-raising prior to the full amendment of January 5, 1995 was Article 7 of the above Act, but after the amendment of Article 19 of the above Act), was entrusted to the above Institute and the Association of Seoul Arts to raise a certain percentage of funds from visitors. However, the court below found that the above Institute and the Association of Seoul Arts entrusted the fund-raising business under a contract between the Institute and the Association of Seoul Arts to be entrusted to each theater and raised funds from their visitors. However, the above Institute and the Association of Seoul Arts were affiliated with the Association of Seoul Arts, and received a notice of approval of the details of the fund-raising from the above Institute and the Association and it was well known that the fund-raising was included in the admission ticket, and thus, the defendant's intent to use and management of the fund can be justified.

In addition, the protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor is admissible unless there is any reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol is not arbitrary if it is acknowledged that the defendant's statement in the protocol is authentic by the statement in the court (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1435 delivered on July 27, 1993). According to the records, the defendant recognizes the authenticity and voluntariness of the protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor in the court of first instance, and considering the relevant evidence and all the circumstances indicated in the records, there is no reason to suspect that the defendant's statement recorded in the protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor in the protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor in the court of first instance is not voluntary.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)