beta
Text
The judgment below
The conviction portion is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the intention to obtain unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her occupational duties, such as his/her own property, with the intention of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and the intention to return or compensate for it later cannot be deemed to have no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.
In addition, the crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of the above unlawful acquisition was finally indicated. Thus, even if the person who committed the crime of embezzlement had a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, such circumstance alone cannot affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established unless there are special circumstances, such as the settlement of accounts prior to the crime of embezzlement, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871 Decided June 14, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871, Jun. 14, 2012). The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the crime of occupational embezzlement on the ground that the Defendant personally transferred the amount of KRW 250,000,000 from the corporate account of the said company to the Defendant’s personal account in order to remit USD 200,000,000,000 to the Defendant’s personal account.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of occupational embezzlement or intent of unlawful acquisition
The precedents pointed out in the grounds of appeal are different from this case.