logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2012.11.29 2012도10139
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
Text

The judgment below

Among the crimes of subparagraphs 2-B, 3-A, 3-B through 12), 3-C, 4-C, and 4 of the decision of the court below.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement No. 1), the stock company is an independent right independent of shareholders, and its interest does not necessarily coincide with each other. Thus, if a shareholder or representative director disposes of the company’s property for a private purpose, then he/she cannot be exempted from the liability of embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or

In addition, the intention of illegal acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another person's property in breach of his/her occupational duty, such as his/her own property, and has the intention to return or compensate for it later.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s determination of guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3) due to the bad debt depreciation

(a) With respect to changes in indictment, the prosecutor may add, withdraw or change charges or applicable provisions of Acts stated in the indictment with permission of the court to the extent that the identity of the charges is not disturbed;

The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social factual relations, which are the basis of the facts charged, are the same in basic terms. In determining the identity of the basic facts, not only natural and social factual relations but also normative elements should also be considered.

Supreme Court on June 24, 2010

arrow