The case holding that, in light of the provisions of the Ordinance on the Support of Social Organizations, etc., the purpose of the above Ordinance shall be deemed to be a strictly limited amount of funds, and even if a person in a position to enforce the above subsidy has diverted the subsidy not for his own interest but for his own interest, it cannot be denied the "illegal acquisition intent" of the crime of occupational embezzlement, even if he has diverted the subsidy to meet the shortage of expenses.

Articles 355(1) and 356 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do366 Decided August 23, 2002 (Gong2002, 2263) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4570 Decided December 24, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 219) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9755 Decided February 29, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 491) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5636 Decided September 25, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-chul

Gwangju District Court Decision 2009No2414 Decided January 6, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 8(1) of the Ordinance on the Support of Social Organizations for the Disabled-gun (Determination of Subsidy) provides that "To promote the efficient operation of social organization subsidies, the Committee shall decide on the subsidy program within the upper limit of each local government in consideration of the results of the social organization's business, its business plan, characteristics, and the purport of the basis for the support of relevant statutes and ordinances, etc." Article 9(1) provides that "the head of a social organization shall apply for the subsidy to the head of the Si/Gun in accordance with attached Form 3 [Attachment 3] in accordance with the implementation period of the subsidy determined under Article 8." Article 10(1) provides that "The head of the social organization shall not use the subsidy granted under the provisions of Articles 8 and 9 for any purpose other than the purpose of the provision of the subsidy." Article 13(Establishment, etc. of a separate account for the subsidy and shall clearly separate the revenue and expenditure from the subsidy."

On the other hand, Article 14 (Application Mutatis Mutandis) of the Ordinance on the Support of Social Organization Subsidies of the Bank of Korea provides that "the provisions of the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies of the Bank of Korea and the Financial Accounting Rules of the Bank of Korea shall apply mutatis mutandis to matters other than those provided for in this Ordinance." Article 11 (Prohibition of Use for Other Purposes) of the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies of the Bank of Korea provides that "the subsidized operator shall faithfully perform the subsidized project with the due care of a good manager in accordance with the statutes, the details and conditions of the decision to grant subsidies, and the disposition of the head of Si/Gun pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall not use the subsidy for other purposes, and Article 12 (Change, etc. of Details of the subsidized project)" provides that "the subsidized operator shall report to the head

In light of the above provisions of the Ordinance on the Support of Social Organizations, it is reasonable to see that the purpose of the Ordinance on the Support of Social Organizations by the Long-Standing Group is strictly limited, and even if a person in a position to enforce the above subsidy is not for his own interest, but for the purpose of facilitating the shortage of expenses, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be denied unless the purpose of the subsidy is strictly limited (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do366, Aug. 23, 2002; 2006Do5636, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the defendant as an occupational embezzlement on the premise that the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition is recognized, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)