logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.02.10 2016노2420
횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant deposited KRW 2,930,830,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the ethyl industry to the Defendant’s account while the Defendant was receiving part of the labor cost of KRW 3 million from the Han ethyl Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Han ethyl Industry”).

The Defendant did not return the instant money to the ethyl industry on the ground that C, an employee of the ethyl industry, made a wrong deposit of the instant money to the Defendant, and requested the Defendant to return the said money. However, the Defendant did not return the said money to the Defendant on the part of the ethyl industry, after hearing the reply that the Defendant would not return the said money if there is any money received by legal consultation with the Korea Labor Agency and the Korea Legal Aid Corporation.

There is a good reason to believe that there is a good reason.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where money was erroneously remitted to a bank account and deposited into such bank account, the deposit owner and remitter are deemed to have a relationship of safekeeping under the good faith principle. Thus, the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming the money deposited into the bank account under the name of the Defendant constitutes embezzlement even if there is no particular transaction relation between the remitter and the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Dec. 9, 2010, etc.). Since the occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of unlawful acquisition is definitely expressed externally, barring special circumstances, such circumstance alone does not affect the crime of embezzlement already established, even if the person who committed the embezzlement committed the embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods. (See Supreme Court Decision 95Do59, Mar. 14, 195; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891, Jun. 14, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 97Do167, Jun. 16, 2012).

arrow