In a case where the use of funds is strictly limited to an organization such as a union, etc., whether the use for other purposes is the realization of the intent of unlawful acquisition (affirmative)

Where the purpose of the fund is strictly limited to an organization such as a cooperative, etc., the use for any purpose other than that of the fund shall not be denied the intention of unlawful acquisition by the realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition as its own act of use, even if it is for the cooperative.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do2698 decided Oct. 14, 1986 (Gong1986, 3058) 87Do1901 decided Oct. 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1705)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Seo-won

Ministry of National Defense and High Military Court Judgment 92No5 delivered on July 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants and their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

If the use of the fund is strictly limited to an organization such as a union, it shall not be denied the intention of unlawful acquisition by means of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition as an act of using the fund itself, even if it is for the union (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1901, Oct. 10, 1989).

Examining the evidence and list of evidence in the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, the defendants' defense counsel's consent to use each park site as evidence, and even if the above statements are inadmissible, the remaining evidence except the above statements among the evidences at the time of the court of first instance does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the illegality of using each of the above statements as evidence for conviction does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and in accordance with the above legal principles, the court below did not establish an association to construct the apartment of the members and received the above construction costs from the members of the association in the site of the driving range located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and it is just that the court of first instance maintained the measure of embezzlement by recognizing the fact that the defendants' defense counsel used each park site as a fund to purchase five lots of land, such as 108 new-dong, Seoul, Seoul, which has no possibility of building permission. The court below's decision is without merit, and there is no violation of rules of evidence or rules of evidence or any other specific violation of law.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)