In the event that the money entrusted with the purpose specified is appropriated arbitrarily for offset against his/her claim against the truster, whether the crime of embezzlement is established (affirmative)

Unless there is a special agreement that the money received with the request to exchange is not used for the purpose and purpose of the set-off appropriation for the defendant's claims against the truster without using it for the purpose and in mind, it is against the original purpose of the set-off settlement, and thus constitutes embezzlement. The existence of the truster's claims against the truster does not affect the establishment of the crime of embezzlement, and the fact that the offset has been appropriated with the opposing claims that can be set-off, does not constitute a justifiable reason to refuse the return of the entrusted money with the specific purpose

Articles 355 and 356 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1199 Decided November 13, 1984 (Gong1985, 50) Supreme Court Decision 88Do1992 Decided January 31, 1989 (Gong1989, 378), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2076 Decided October 12, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3832)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Anon Law Firm, Attorney Lee Ba-hoon

Seoul District Court Decision 97No946 delivered on May 2, 1997

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the violation of the rules of evidence

According to the evidence cited by the first instance judgment cited by the court below, since the defendant in collusion with the non-indicted 1 at a temporary location at the time of the first instance trial and the defendant refused the return without exchanging the cash of KRW 110,00,000 delivered with the funds in mind at the time of the first trial, the fact-finding by the court below as to the occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in this case is acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence that affect the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, there is no reason to discuss.

As to the misapprehension of legal principles

The issue is that the above money that the defendant received from the above 100 won is not the ownership of the victim's river, but the money owned by the 100 son of the above 100 son, and the above 100 son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's 16, 196 Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's 90,000 son's son's 1's son's son's son's 9.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)