beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the resolution of selecting J as the president, etc. at the special meeting of the victim clan of August 18, 2013 by mistake of facts is unlawful and invalid in the course of the procedure, there is a justifiable reason for the Defendant to challenge the authority of the executive organ of the new election elected at the above special meeting and refuse to return KRW 203,141,784 (hereinafter “the instant money custody”). The Defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below rejected the above argument of the defendant and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that the defendant in this part of the judgment of the court below stated in detail that "the summary of evidence" is "the summary of the judgment of the court below," and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. 2) In order to establish the crime of occupational embezzlement of another's property, the person who keeps another's property in breach of his duty with the intent of unlawful acquisition should embezzlement or refuse to return the property (Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act). Here, "the intention of unlawful acquisition" refers to the intention of disposal in fact or in law, such as the case where the person in custody of another's property in violation of his/her duty of duty
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5439 Decided February 5, 2002, etc.). "Refusal to return" in embezzlement refers to an act of expressing intent to exclude the owner's rights against the stored goods. Thus, the mere fact that the custodian of another's property refuses to return does not constitute embezzlement, and the refusal to return should be deemed the same as the embezzlement.