2018 Highest 3851 Occupational Embezzlement

1. South Korean Vice-President; 52. Symists;

Busan

2. The area south of the Republic of Korea; 64. The area of a school, teacher, or staff member;

Housing Yangsan City

3. Triju 61. Symists, teachers (private).

Quantities of residential san

4. An honorary professor at 50.M. and ○ University;

Busan

The type of prosecution, leap-line, and leap-line

Law Firm

August 11, 2020

The sentence of punishment shall be suspended against the Defendants.

Criminal facts

From February 15, 2001 to August 31, 201, the vice president of ○ University operated by the ○○ University, which is operated by the ○ University in Yangsan, kept money belonging to the accounts of school expenses by taking overall charge of the management of school affairs and the execution of the accounts of school expenses. The Defendant Lee Jong-il, from June 1, 2005 to February 27, 2009, and from March 1, 2009 to June 29, 201, Defendant Cho Jong-ri, respectively, kept money belonging to the accounts of school expenses for the execution of the accounts of ○ University from July 1, 201 to August 31, 2012. The principal of ○ University, who is in charge of the management of school expenses of ○○ University, shall not be used directly for any other purpose or directly for any other purpose, and shall not be used for any other purpose.

1. The Vice-President of the Republic of Korea, and the Vice-Speaker of the Defendant;

On December 29, 2008, the Defendants conspired and embezzled 5,500,000 won to the law firm shock in terms of the attorney fee related to the lawsuit, such as confirmation of invalidity of the re-contract of the faculty member, while he/she kept the tuition fee for the victim in business at the above university.

2. Joint criminal administration by the Vice-President of the Defendant and the Prosecutor General of the Defendant;

On August 13, 2009, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the total of KRW 13,200,000 by the above four occasions as shown in the attached list of crimes, from that time, up to March 9, 201, the Defendants paid KRW 3,30,000 to the BB law office as the attorney’s fee in relation to the lawsuit, such as nullification of the non-contractual measure of teachers, while keeping school expenses for the victim in the course of business at the above university.

3. Joint principal and vice-principal of the defendant, and joint principal and vice-principal of the defendant;

On June 29, 2012, the Defendants conspired and embezzled 3,300,000 won of the teaching staff to the U.S. office in the name of a lawyer in relation to the lawsuit to revoke the revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the reappointment of the teaching staff, while the said university kept the teaching staff for the victim in office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Documents related to expenditure (number 5 through 10), such as the written accusation, statement of work period, and written resolution for each disbursement, a certified copy of corporate register;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. The Vice-President and the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Korea: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (Selection of Fines) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (Selection of Punishment) of the Criminal Act; (c) Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (Selection of Punishment of Fines) of the Criminal Act;

The Vice-President and the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Korea: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The type to be suspended;

(a) Vice-President of the Defendant: Fines of 800,000 won;

(b) Defendant prosecution: Fines of 300,000 won;

(c) Defendant’s wife, Lee Jong-il: Fines 200,000 won;

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day)

1. Suspension of sentence;

Defendants: Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable circumstances, etc.)

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. The assertion;

While recognizing the basic facts of the facts charged, the Defendants and the defense counsel did not raise any question as to the disbursement as stated in the facts charged in the Ministry of Education or the audit results of the Board of Education or the Board of Audit and Inspection, and determined that the disbursement in the accounts of school expenses is lawful according to the wrong guidance of the Ministry of Education and the Korea Private School Promotion Foundation, and disbursed the attorney’s expenses in the accounts of school expenses. Thus, the above disbursement is not allowed by the statutes (Article 13(2)1 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act) or it is not possible to constitute embezzlement on the grounds that there is no intent to recognize

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the cost of each of the instant attorneys-at-law can be paid out of the accounts for school expenses.

Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, which provides for matters concerning the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses by delegation under Article 29(2) of the Private School Act, provides that the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses shall be the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses, and includes personnel expenses and goods (Article 1) necessary for school operation, expenses for the installation of facilities directly necessary for school education (Article 2), and other expenses directly required for school education (Article 5). Thus, whether the expenditure of the accounts for school expenses is an expenditure of the accounts for school expenses that are allowed by the revenues belonging to the accounts for school expenses ought to be determined based on whether the relevant school’s education is directly necessary in light of all the circumstances related to the relevant expenditure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12408, May 10,

In light of Article 29 of the Private School Act, Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, and Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, and the purpose of use of accounts for school expenses under the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the language and text, litigation expenses related to corporate affairs shall not be paid from accounts for school expenses even if the lawsuit is related to a certain part of the operation of the school. According to the above evidence, the authority of appointment and dismissal of 00 university teachers falls under the affairs of private teaching institutes, such as the president of S Teaching Institutes, which is a corporation. Thus, the attorney-at-law’s expenses to be paid in litigation concerning the appointment and dismissal of the teachers are not the expenses to be paid from the corporate accounts, nor the expenses to

B. Next, we examine whether the Defendants are aware of the criminal intent of embezzlement, intent of illegal acquisition, and illegality.

Inasmuch as an act of using funds for purposes other than the purpose of being entrusted with a strictly limited fund by a third person is established as embezzlement because it realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition as an act of using funds itself, even if the purpose of using funds is personally derived from the personal purpose, and thereby, even if the entrusted principal is above, the income belonging to the accounts of a private school is included in the expenditure of legitimate school expenses accounts, namely, if the income belonging to the accounts of a private school is used for purposes other than those directly necessary for the education of the relevant school, then the act of using it itself realizes the intent of unlawful acquisition, and thereby, it cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9755, Feb. 29, 2008; 2014Do15182, Feb. 26, 2015).

As long as the defendants used school expenses which are strictly limited in use as above, it is necessary to realize the intent of illegal acquisition by itself. Therefore, it is determined that the defendants had the intent of embezzlement and illegal acquisition.

In addition, the guidance guidelines of the Ministry of Education and the Korea Foundation for the Promotion of Private School, which are pointed out by the Defendants and the defense counsel, are merely an original and abstract content that the litigation expenses related to school operation can be disbursed in school expenses accounts, and thus, the above guidance guidelines were trusted, and there is no justifiable reason for the Defendants to believe the illegality thereof. This part of the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion is

The defendants' basic facts are acknowledged, the financial situation of SAAC is not difficult to spend litigation costs from the corporate accounting, and the school juristic person's financial expenditure is reduced, so this case cannot be viewed as an act to take personal benefits only from the interests of the defendants. It does not seem to clearly inform the supervisory organ of this case that it does not have been pointed out from the supervisory organ such as the Ministry of Education about these acts, and it does not seem to be specific cases that the supervisory organ should prohibit the act similar to the crime of this case beyond the original and abstract guidance around the time of this case. It appears that the complaint of this case was committed at five years or more from the last disbursement of this case, and it was committed at the time of the last disbursement of this case, at the time of the order of the crime, at the age of five years or more from the last disbursement of this case, and the amount of the litigation costs, which is the amount of embezzlement, and the amount of the money expenditure of the school juristic person, and the amount of the defendant's property was transferred from the juristic person on August 3, 2018, and there were no other factors to punish the defendant's property.

Judges Kim Gin-Un