The meaning of custody of property in embezzlement

The custody of property in embezzlement refers to the state of de facto or legal control over the property. Thus, the custody should be based on the consignment relationship, as well as the management of affairs, customs, cooking, and the good faith principle are not required to be established by a contract such as loan of use, lease, delegation, etc.

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1705 Decided July 24, 1968 Supreme Court Decision 82Do75 Decided September 13, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No7653 delivered on July 16, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that decided that the defendant's act of occupying the money offered by the non-indicted king as the custody relation is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding.

The theory of lawsuit also means that there was no custody relationship between the defendant and the victim of this case with regard to the money of this case, or the custody of property in the crime of embezzlement means the state of actual or legal control over the property and that the custody should be based on the consignment relationship, but it does not necessarily require that it is established by a contract such as loan of use, lease of lease, etc., and it is also established by the customary principle of office management and the principle of good faith. According to the evidence cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize that the money of this case occupied by the defendant is not properly repaid by the defendant like the theory of lawsuit, but it is sufficient to recognize that all of the complainants of this case including the defendant and the non-indicteds of this case have a custody relationship between the defendant and the above non-indicted. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below, which is the same purport, is legitimate and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of embezzlement.

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

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)