A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

[Defendant B, and D] Partial Recognition

Crime: Occupational Breach of Trust, Defendant C, and F

Resolution : Occupational Breach of Trust :

C. Occupational embezzlement (a recognized as Defendant A)

Name of crime: Occupational Embezzlement

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(f) Illegal use;

G. Illegal user events (as against Defendant A)

§ 220,000,000

(h) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

1. (a). (b)

IB

2. (c) d. E. F.g.

A person shall be appointed.

3. (a) b. H.

A person shall be appointed.

4. (a) b. e.

A person shall be appointed.

5.(b) F

6. (a) G.

7. A. C. H.

8. (c) I

Defendant B, C, D, F, G, H, I

Prosecutor (Defendant A)

Attorney PG (for national ships, Defendant B, and D)

Attorney PH, PI (for Defendant B)

Law Firm N

Attorney PJ, PK, PL, 0, X, PM, PN

PO, PP, P Q,OY, PR

(for Defendant C, F)

Law Firm OZ

Attorney PA, PS, PB, PPC, PT

(for Defendant D)

Law Firm PU

Attorney PV, PW, PX, PY, PZ

(for Defendant D)

Attorney OE (Law No. 1000, Defendant G, and H)

P Law Firm

Attorney Q Q, MT and JG (for Defendant G),

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2013Do21 Decided May 9, 2013

October 24, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed)

The grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement.

1. Appeal filed by Defendant B and D related to the U.S. and the WT (hereinafter referred to as the "WAD")

Concerning the Grounds

A. Occupational embezzlements related to the purchase of AS and the holding of falsified AS documents

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment

Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement and the exercise of Defendant D’s ex officio investigation documents on the grounds of the same circumstance as the time

It is just to find a guilty guilty of the facts charged, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

There is an error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the rules of interest and experience.

subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Specific Economic Crimes Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act") concerning U.S. university tuition fees of KRW 6,571, 282,00;

(B) the violation of the Special Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act")

Article 13 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act (Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act)

Article 29 of the Private School Act and its time-period provide for "expenses for school expenses" as items of expenditure in the accounts for school expenses.

The provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 13, Article 25, and Article 36 of the Financial and Accounting Rules, shall be integrated;

The accounts of the Myeon school juristic person shall be divided into the accounts of the school accounting and the corporate accounts, and in particular, the accounts of school expenses among the accounts.

The revenue belonging to the school shall be the result of entrance fees, tuition fees, etc. collected from the student.

The purpose of use is strictly restricted, such as transfer or lending to other accounts, etc., and school associations;

The budget of the department shall be compiled by the head of the school after consultation with the Advisory Committee on Budget and Settlement of Accounts of the school concerned.

of the board of directors of the school juristic person, subject to deliberation and resolution by the board of directors of the school juristic person, and related to the school accounting;

contract to be entered into shall be the head of the school to become the person in charge of the contract and shall be required to be disbursed under such contract.

Inasmuch as facilities and equipment necessary for school education are established at the time of the establishment of a private school.

The construction cost of facilities and equipment for which the founder has concluded a contract for construction shall be the conditions for the authorization to establish a school.

of the corporate accounting of the school juristic person regardless of whether it is a facility or facility included in the

(b) Accounting for school expenses under Article 13 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, to be borne by the founder;

(2) If a person is entrusted with a limited amount of money to be used by the person, such money shall not be disbursed.

use of funds for purposes other than for such limited purposes shall be personal

as a result, even if there is a challenge to the principal who entrusted the fund, that is not only derived from the occurrence of such a challenge.

The crime of embezzlement is established by realizing the intent of illegal acquisition as an act of use itself.

income belonging to the System shall not be transferred or lent to other accounts as above, and the use thereof shall be the same.

Since it is strictly restricted, the income belonging to the accounts of school expenses of private schools is legitimate accounts of school expenses.

uses included in the expenditure, i.e., other uses not directly required for the education of the school concerned;

If used, it is the act of use itself to realize the intention of unlawful acquisition, and the crime resulting therefrom.

No liability may be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3742 decided May 29, 2008, etc.).

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, found by the aforementioned Defendants to be U.S. University.

To withdraw 6, 571, 282,00 won not directly necessary for the education of U.S. universities;

Reconciliation in a lawsuit between UAD and WAD shall be between the said U.S. University in light of the developments leading up to the formation thereof.

all charges of this part of the facts charged, determined that the withdrawal of school expenses cannot be the basis for justifying it;

It was recognized as a crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted by the lower court.

The above judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

To exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or to constitute occupational embezzlement;

There is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of one legal principle.

In addition, the withdrawal of the above school expenses shall repay the principal and interest of the loan under the proviso of Article 29 (6) of the Private School Act.

Defendant D’s statement to the effect that the act of embezzlement is not an act of embezzlement because it can be seen as falling under “the case.”

The above defendant did not assert as the grounds for appeal at the court below, and the court below ex officio.

Since it is not subject to adjudication, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2012.

3. The above ground of appeal is examined ex officio by examining ex officio the 15th Decision 2011Do17939, etc.

There is no violation of law as alleged in the claim.

(c) Special circumstances related to the payment, such as the occupation of occupational breach of trust and the special allowances for honorary senior generals, in connection with U.S. construction;

Violation (Misappropriation of trust)

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment

For the same reasons, the Defendants’ assertion that there was no intention to commit occupational breach of trust and the participation in the crime.

The rejection of the allegation of denial and the conviction of this part of the facts charged is just, and it is so decided.

The limitation of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the appellant.

There is an error of exceeding B/O or by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust and joint principal offense.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. Defendant B, I, H, and G’s grounds of appeal and prosecutor related to the school expenses of the BS High School (hereinafter referred to as “BS high school”).

As to the grounds of appeal

(a) Defendant B, H’s BS school expenses of KRW 180,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000 and KRW 1.55,00,000,000;

Violation (Embezzlements) or the point of occupational embezzlement

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment

Defendant B’s assertion that there was no intention of occupational breach of trust due to the same circumstance as the time, and Defendant H

The rejection of the claim of denial of the co-principal and the conviction of this part of the facts charged is just; and

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence

It is deemed that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust and joint principal offense.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The point of Defendant I’s occupational embezzlement with respect to Defendant I’s BS high school expenses of KRW 180 million

Defendant I’s assertion of denial of co-principals by the above Defendant is not alleged as the ground for appeal in the lower court.

Since the court below did not have been subject to a judgment ex officio, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the amount of the judgment below in this case where the defendant I was sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years

It did not examine properly the various circumstances that were unfair or sentencing conditions.

The argument to the effect cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

C. The prosecutor's defendant A with BS high school expenses of KRW 180,000,000,000,00 for occupational embezzlement

Embezzlement in embezzlement refers to any act of realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition.

embezzlement is established when there is an objective act that can be externally known to the outside of the intent of unlawful acquisition.

, the term "illegal obtaining intention" is occupational for the purpose of pursuing the interest of himself or a third party.

of the property of another person in his custody in violation of section 154(1) of this title.

corporation's account to be disposed of at this rate, and the corporation's account to be

An act of raising funds by means of withdrawing and keeping it in a borrowed account, etc.

not for the purpose, but for the purpose of personal exploitation by the defendants after deducting the corporation's funds.

If it is clearly found that the creation has been made, the creation itself may result in realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition.

can be recognized as such (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3039 delivered on August 24, 2006, etc.).

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found that the act of occupational embezzlement was already committed when the above school expenses were withdrawn.

After finding that the act of the defendant A was done after the finding that the act of the defendant A was reached

Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it cannot be deemed as aiding and abetting the crime

Provided, That this was the case.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination

2. As otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the time of embezzlement.

There is no violation of law such as law.

D. Defendant B and G’s violation of the Special Economic Act (Embezzlement) regarding KRW 1.4 billion in school expenses of KRW 1.4 billion

Matters concerning the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses by delegation under Article 29 (2) of the Private School Act

Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses shall be the expenses prescribed in each subparagraph.

under section 1(1) provides that personnel and property expenses necessary for the operation of a school shall be

under section 5, expenses for facilities and equipment directly required for the land, and any other competition directly required for school education

Inasmuch as expenses are used, it constitutes a property that can be acquired as revenue belonging to the accounts for school expenses.

whether it is a property directly necessary for the education of the school in question.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7138 Decided February 5, 2002, etc.).

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, in collusion with Defendant B, G, and A for the reasons indicated in its holding

the withdrawal of BS high school expenses of KRW 1.4 billion is not directly necessary for the education of BS high school;

As long as the school expenses are spent for purposes not being paid legally from the accounts of school expenses, the withdrawal thereof.

of this part of the facts charged that the entire amount should be deemed as damage to the BS dismissal

It was recognized as a crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court

The above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and G.

To exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or to constitute occupational embezzlement;

There is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of one legal principle.

E. The public prosecutor's event of private use and private use and private use and fabrication of private documents, and the above

The fact that the event of an investigation document, the event of an illegal user

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the facts set forth in this part of the facts charged G

Recognizing that this part of the facts charged against Defendant A was made with the consent of the use thereof, this part of the facts charged against Defendant A

Two not guilty.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. There is no violation of laws such as law.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants B, C, and F related to V University

A. Defendant B, C, and F’s violation of the Special Economic Act (Embezzlements) and violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriations) in relation to the expenses of the V University.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court

Defendant B’s assertion and avoid that there was no intention to embezzlement or breach of trust on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

Jin C, F’s assertion of denial of co-principality, and the conviction of this part of the facts charged

The above Defendants’ ground of appeal is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

On the contrary, exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence, or committing occupational embezzlement, occupational breach of trust, and joint principal offenders.

There is no error of law such as misunderstanding legal principles.

B. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment by Defendant C

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Regulation, Punishment, etc. of Revenue Concealment Act shall be an ex post facto money laundering.

The defendant's argument that only regulation is restricted is rejected and the defendant is guilty of this part of the charges.

It is just that there is a misunderstanding of the interpretation of the above provision, as otherwise alleged in the Defendant’s ground of appeal.

there is no violation of laws such as law.

4. Conclusion

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

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548