(a) Expression of intent to acquire unlawful profits in the crime of occupational embezzlement;

(b) Whether the crime of occupational embezzlement already established where a person who has embezzled another person's money kept in his/her business with the intention of obtaining unlawful profits claims that he/she has a separate monetary claim against the owner, and where he/she has expressed his/her intention of offsetting the amount of embezzlement by using it as an automatic claim

(c) Whether a shareholder of a company constitutes an offense of occupational embezzlement by arbitrarily disposing of the company's money while keeping it in the course of business

(a) The term "the intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement" means the intention of disposing of the property of another person, in fact or in law, that is in breach of his/her occupational duty, for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party;

B. As long as an offense was established by embezzlement of another person’s money kept in the line of duty with the intent of unlawful acquisition, even if a person who committed the embezzlement asserts that he/she has a separate monetary claim against the owner of the goods, and that he/she has expressed his/her intent of offsetting the amount of embezzlement from the equivalent amount of the automatic bond, it does not affect the crime of occupational embezzlement already established.

C. In the case of a company to which the shares of a stock company actually belong to one shareholder, the company and the shareholder are clearly separate personality, and the assets of one company cannot be immediately deemed to be owned by the shareholder. Thus, even if the company is a de facto single shareholder, the so-called company's capital constitutes the so-called crime of occupational embezzlement where it was disposed of arbitrarily during the course of business

Article 356 of the Criminal Code, Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do2698 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Gong1986, 3058) (Gong1989, 1705 delivered on October 10, 1989) 94Do619 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2675 delivered on April 13, 1982) (Gong1982, 539 delivered on February 24, 1987) 86Do999 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Gong1987, 587) (Gong1989, 1037)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-in et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 94No1908 delivered on November 23, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The 110 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In the crime of occupational embezzlement, the term "the intent of unlawful acquisition" refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of promoting his/her own or a third party's interest, such as that of his/her own possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do619, Sept. 9, 194; 87Do1901, Oct. 10, 1989; 85Do2698, Oct. 14, 1986). The crime of occupational embezzlement is established when the intent of such unlawful acquisition is definitely expressed externally. As such, once the crime was established by embezzlement of another person's money kept in his/her duties with the intent of unlawful acquisition, the person who has committed the crime of embezzlement asserts that he/she has separate monetary claims against the owner of the goods, and it does not affect the crime of occupational embezzlement even if he/she has expressed his/her intent of offset on the equal amount of embezzlement.

According to the first instance court and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant, as the representative director of the non-indicted Construction Company, received 39.68% shares of the Corporation among the order for the regular relocation of the Army Business Control Group, and received 69,042,369,421 won in total from the Army Central Security Group over several times from around that time, and received from the Army Central Security Group a total of 69,042,369,421 won from the above Corporation for the above Corporation's personal purpose, and withdrawn 11,00,000 won from November 9, 191 to the above Corporation's office for its own personal purpose, and had the accounting officer enter only in the account book as the advance payment for the Corporation's highway, and the defendant did not have any unlawful intent to collect or use the bill as to the above company's personal interest and thus, it was sufficient to recognize that the defendant did not have any unlawful intent to collect or use the bill.

Meanwhile, even in a company where the shares of a stock company actually belong to one shareholder, the company and the shareholder are clearly separate personality, and the company's assets are not immediately owned by one shareholder. Thus, even if the defendant is actually one shareholder of the above company, the defendant who disposes of the above company's funds at will during the course of business custody does not have any complaint for the crime of embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do570 delivered on May 23, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 86Do99 delivered on February 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 80Do537 delivered on April 13, 1982).

Therefore, the court below's decision that found the so-called "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Occupational Embezzlement)" of the defendant is just, and there is no error in law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit, lack of reason, contradiction in reasoning, omission of judgment, incomplete hearing, and

(2) According to each protocol of interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the witness's statement in the court of first instance as to the witness's statement and the statement in the military prosecutor's statement, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime of offering of a bribe in the judgment of the defendant. Thus, the court below's decision that found the so-called "providing of a bribe" in the judgment of the defendant is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)