beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
The Defendants conspired to act on September 28, 201 and elected Defendant A as the president of the management body of the building D in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si on the following day: (a) on October 7, 201, the management office transferred 14 million won accumulated as the cost of installing parking lots from E to the account under the name of Defendant B; and (b) on November 23, 201, the Defendants embezzled 3,300,000 won for the attorney’s appointment on December 22, 2011; (c) on December 22, 2011, he/she embezzled 1,237,000 won for the ordinary general meeting on May 11, 2012; and (d) on May 21, 2012, the attorney fees of attorney fees of 300,000,000 won on May 21, 2012, using the total amount of KRW 15,1258,15.
Judgment
An act of using funds for any purpose other than the limited purpose upon being entrusted with a strictly limited amount of funds is the act of using the funds itself to realize the intention of unlawful acquisition, and the crime of embezzlement is established.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9755, Feb. 29, 2008; 2009Do6482, Mar. 11, 2010). Whether the use of KRW 14 million transferred by E to Defendant B’s account is limited to the installation cost of parking lots.
According to the statement of the police statement of E, the above KRW 14 million is recognized to have been accumulated in part of the parking income to the sectional owners who contributed to the parking lot installation cost that he worked as the chief of the management office before the management body of D building was organized.
However, if a management body is formed, parking proceeds are money of the nature that should naturally belong to the management body, so it should not be used only for the purpose designated by E, and since the period of accumulation is before the management body of the D Building is formed, the internal resolution of the management body of D Building that the said money should be used only for the purpose of refunding the cost of installing parking lots, cannot be established, and there is no evidence that there was any restriction by other statutes or internal regulations of the organization with regard to the use of the said money.
Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is alone.