Where a number of business embezzlements should be deemed a single crime;

Even if multiple occupational embezzlement is a single crime, it is reasonable to view that the legal interest of the damage is a single crime, and when it is recognized that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293 Form64 Delivered on August 3, 1960

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No1581 delivered on May 9, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if several business embezzlements are involved, it is reasonable to view that the legal interest of the damage is a single, identical, and if it is recognized that it is a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it is a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Do64 delivered on August 3, 1960).

However, according to the records, the criminal facts of the final and conclusive judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 84Da2531 delivered on October 16, 1984) that the defendant received after the crime of this case are found to have been subject to concurrent one crime due to the fact that the defendant embezzled registration expenses such as registration fees in the course of business while being kept in custody in the course of business upon request of the victim for each of the following registration application procedures by the new Construction Co., Ltd., the Lee Jong-dae, the Lee Jong-dong Co., Ltd., the Busan District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 84Da2531 delivered on October 16, 1984). The criminal facts of this case have been punished as concurrent one crime due to the fact that each of the above final and conclusive judgments or the criminal facts of this case would not affect the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment.

The theory of the lawsuit cited the Supreme Court Decision 84Do1322 delivered on July 24, 1984 and criticizes the time of the original adjudication, but this decision cannot be a proper precedent for this case as it concerns habitual fraud.

Therefore, the theory of res judicata of the above final judgment and the theory of the lawsuit that the judgment of acquittal should be rendered is without merit, and the appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

No person who is a judge of the Supreme Court shall affix his/her signature and seal on an overseas business trip.