(a) Whether the goods offered to the said enterprise become the objects of larceny by its partners;

(b) composition of embezzlement of money entrusted with the purpose and purpose of embezzlement;

A. The goods offered to the company belongs to the joint possession of the partners unless the partnership relationship is liquidated. Thus, the reason why the goods are originally owned by the defendant or that the defendant lent to another place is not sufficient to create an object of larceny.

B. The money entrusted with the purpose and purpose is reserved by the truster until it is used for a specified purpose and purpose. In particular, if the specific nature of the money is not required, the trustee cannot be deemed to constitute embezzlement even if it is temporarily used in a situation where it can be replaced by another money at the necessary time without going against the purport of the entrustment. The trustee constitutes embezzlement only when he consumes it for another purpose in violation of the purport of the entrustment.

A. Article 329 of the Criminal Act: Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do1381 delivered on December 8, 1987 (Gong1988, 304) (Gong1990, 2112). Supreme Court Decision 86Do1946 delivered on September 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1105) 89Do904 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong190, 583) 94Do462 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2674)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No8509 delivered on June 29, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to the violation of the rules of evidence

In light of the records and comparison of the evidence of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below which recognized the fact that the defendant, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, stolen technical materials, manufacturing tools, etc. belonging to the joint possession with the non-indicted 1 who is the partner, arbitrarily prepared one copy of the same business contract with the alteration of the text, and let the accounting staff non-indicted 2, who is aware of the fact, affix his seal to the name of the above model, thereby forging one copy of the same business contract in the name of the above model, and the non-indicted 2, in collusion with the non-indicted 2, who received 6,00,000 won from the above model to the purchase price of the raw materials used by the non-indicted 2 as the raw materials for the counter-indicted 2 to be used by the defendant, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

As to the misapprehension of legal principles

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the stolen goods as stated in the judgment are goods provided to the same enterprise with the above model with the defendant and they belong to their joint possession unless they are liquidated. Thus, the reason that the goods are originally owned by the defendant or provided by the defendant with a loan from another place does not obstruct the conclusion of the crime of larceny. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport does not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to larceny.

In addition, the ownership of the money entrusted with the purpose and purpose is reserved to the truster until it is used for the specified purpose and purpose. In particular, if the specific nature of the money is not required, the trustee cannot be deemed to constitute embezzlement even if it is temporarily used in a situation where it is possible to substitute it for another money at the necessary time without going against the purpose of the entrustment. The trustee uses it for another purpose in violation of the purpose of the entrustment. Thus, even in this case, the above non-indicted 2 used the money temporarily for the purpose of the entrustment and committed embezzlement against the purport of the entrustment. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of embezzlement in the judgment of the court below to the same purport.

On the other hand, the defendant did not specifically point out the grounds for illegality in the judgment of the court below, even though there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the crime of forging private documents. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)