2010Do13814 (a) Occupational embezzlement

(b) Violation of the Social Welfare Services Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Attorney Jeon Ho-hun et al.

Changwon District Court Decision 2010No650 Decided September 30, 2010

February 24, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 42(2) and (3)2 of the Social Welfare Services Act and Article 53 subparag. 2 of the same Act, the Act prohibits a person who carries out social welfare business from using subsidies granted by the State or a local government for purposes other than their original purposes, and requires him/her to be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 15 million won if he/she violates this provision, and may order him/her to return all or part of the subsidies granted. In light of the contents and purport of the above provision, it is reasonable to deem that the above subsidies are funds whose purposes are strictly limited. Thus, if a person who carries out the entrusted subsidy uses them for other purposes, it would itself realize the intention of unlawful acquisition and thus constitute embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do366, Aug. 23, 2002; 203Do4570, Dec. 24, 2004).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, it is just for the court below to find the Defendant guilty of both occupational embezzlement and violation of the Social Welfare Services Act that the Defendant used the State subsidy granted to the non-indicted social welfare foundation for the purpose other than its original purpose as stated in its judgment. It cannot be viewed that the use is merely a temporary useful or that the amount equivalent to the amount used is used for the purpose of the State subsidy. Therefore, the ground of appeal that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to embezzlement or the intent of unlawful acquisition is not accepted.

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices private-private partnership.

Justices Lee In-bok et al.