Cases of misunderstanding the legal principle of custody in embezzlement

In the event that the exchange of the Dong Council takes out the cash and deposits received from its employees to the viewing safe, the crime of embezzlement is established, not theft, if the cash and deposits are consumed in private expenses.

Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 68Da1425 delivered on August 6, 1968

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court alone.

Judgment on the prosecutor's summary grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the facts charged by the public prosecutor are merely those which were returned to the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 1967. 09:00, the public prosecutor's office received orders from the 144,345 won in cash which the 27,90 won in cash and 172,245 won in the 20th office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 1967. 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 1967. 3rd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 197nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 1967. 3nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 3nd office of the 190th office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 3rd.

However, embezzlement is established as a crime where a person who keeps another's property embezzled or refuses to return the property. The custody referred to in the crime of embezzlement is different from the concept of possession under the Civil Act, and is sufficient if the person has de facto control, i.e., the actual custody of the property. As long as the person has de facto control over the property, the possession assistant is also the custodian. In this case, even though the defendant is merely a return at the same time, the cash and the money found in the deposit received from the said employee constituted a person who actually has de facto control and thus, the defendant is a person who keeps another's property. Therefore, the judgment of the court below has affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the custody in the crime of embezzlement. Accordingly

Therefore, the summary appeal of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kimchi-bak (Presiding Justice)