(a) The proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act where military supplies are embezzled in collusion with a person who keeps military supplies in the course of business;

(b) The meaning of "acquisition in return for the disposal of stolen property" under Article 380 (2) of the Military Court-Related Act (Article 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act);

A. In a case where non-occupierd in collusion with a professional possessor, the non-occupier is also established in accordance with the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act. However, in the case of embezzlement for military supplies, the statutory punishment is the same as that of the simple embezzlement that was occupational embezzlement under this Article, and thus the seriousness between the two crimes does not exist, in applying law, the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act is not applicable.

B. The phrase "those acquired in return for the disposal of the so-called stolen property under Article 380 (2) of the former Gun Council Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3993, Dec. 4, 87) (Article 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act)" means the goods acquired through the sale or exchange of stolen property where the proceeds from the sale or exchange of stolen property are held in custody shall be deemed to be the same as the confiscated stolen property. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that it constitutes a stolen property under Article 380 (1) of the same Act, and it does not fall under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

Article 75 of the Military Criminal Act, Articles 33, 356, and 355 of the Criminal Act, Article 380 of the Military Court Act (Article 333 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and Article 173 of the Military Court Act (Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act)

Defendant 1 and five others

5 High Military Port81 delivered on April 30, 1965, such as the Army of the Republic of Korea and the Army of the second instance.

All appeals are dismissed.

From among the days of pre-trial detention after the appeal, 80 days of pre-trial detention shall be included in the respective principal sentence of the Defendant Park Jong-J, Dong Kim Tae, Dong Kim Tae-J, Dong Kim Jong-J, Dong Kim Jong-J

The grounds of appeal by each defendant and defense counsel are examined.

1. We examine the evidence admitted by the original judgment in comparison with the records, and do not err in the rules of evidence or in the incomplete hearing in the original judgment, and adopting the confession within the statement of the co-defendant as evidence is legitimate, and there is no illegality in the fact-finding by adopting evidence without admissibility in the original judgment.

In addition, there is no question that criticizes the fact-finding of the original judgment on the premise that there was no independent value judgment on evidence or new evidence that was not presented to the original judgment, and that the sentencing is excessive, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal by Article 432 of the Military Court-Martial Law. Moreover, there is no argument that there was an error in the application of the law on the premise that the original judgment is erroneous on the premise that

2. When the original judgment recognizes Defendant 2’s crime of violation of the order, the Defendant, who was the recipient, in the process of non-exploitation of distributed goods, is only in control over the confirmation of the amount of non-exploitation, etc., and even if the amount of duties is high, it is recognized that the measures such as confirmation, etc. pursuant to Article 711-2 and Article 45 of the Army Regulations could have sufficiently been taken. Thus, in light of the records, the judgment that the Defendant cannot be held accountable for criminal liability is justifiable in light of the records,

3. In a case where a non-occupier embezzled in collusion with a possessor in the course of his duties, the non-occupier also constitutes an accomplice relationship pursuant to the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act. However, in the case of embezzlement of military supplies, the statutory punishment is the same pursuant to Article 75 of the Military Criminal Act between the simple embezzlement of occupational embezzlement and the crime of embezzlement of military supplies, and the severity between the two crimes is nonexistent. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act should not be applied to Defendant 3 in the application of the Act on the Occupational Embezzlement to Defendant 2, who is a co-defendant in the course of his duties, is justifiable and there is no ground for appeal against the defense counsel’s appeal against this error.

4. To examine each issue that criticizes the victim's assistance in the delivery of seized articles in the original judgment;

In light of the record, the judgment of facts against the defendant's acquisition of Nos. 81 through 88, which was seized by the original judgment from defendant 4, cannot be said to be erroneous.

In addition, Article 380 (2) of the Appellate Court Act (Article 333 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act) (the same shall apply to the case of disposal of stolen articles) refers to the sale price or exchange of stolen articles, which does not belong to the ownership of a person other than the criminal. The money in the case of keeping the proceeds of sale of stolen articles under Article 173 of the same Act shall be deemed to be the same as the seized stolen articles. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that it directly constitutes the stolen articles under Article 380 (1) of the same Act, and it does not fall under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

Therefore, it is not possible to adopt a defense counsel's argument to criticize the victim's assistance in the seizure of the original judgment. Therefore, since each appeal in this case is without merit, 80 days out of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, the 80 days out of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the respective principal sentence of the defendant's stuff, Dong Kim Tae, Dong Kim Tae, Dong Kim Young, Dong Kim Young, and Dong Kim Jin. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu