착오로 송금된 금전을 임의로 소비한 경우와 재산범죄 = Property Crime on the Case of Spending Money remitted by mistake

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The supreme court held that the receiver who arbitrarily spent money remitted by mistake has to take the criminal liability of embezzlement. However, embezzlement has been committed by not whoever but a person who has the custody of another's property. The supreme court has widely admitted the bases of trustee not only 'the contract of trust' but also 'management of affairs', 'custom' and 'trust and good faith'.
Embezzlement will not be able to be committed if the actor is not trustee. It is important whether the actor is trustee or not. Therefore, the supreme court from the viewpoint of the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" should judge very carefully whether the confidential relationship between the two parties exists or not.
The lower courts has held that the actor in this case should take the criminal liability of embezzlements of lost articles. According to the article 360 of the criminal code, the objects of 'embezzlements of lost articles' are articles. We should consider the legal point whether the deposit is a sort of article or not.
It seems that the meaning of money focuses on the value in exchange rather than a thing. We can easily draw money from an account. We should consider that the remitted deposit by mistake is regarded as lost article in a viewpoint of criminal law.
Although the remitter can investigate the receiver's account number, name, address by checking the details of the bank account, it is difficult that the remitter restores the remitted money by mistake. In addition, the supreme court has held whenever the receiver acquires the claim to the deposit corresponding to the transferred money by giro in his bank, even if there is no transaction between the remitter and the receiver(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da69746 delivered on December 10, 2009).
In the viewpoint that not only the ownerless things but also the things possessed without entrustment of the person who holds a right are regarded as lost articles, the money remitted by mistake are regarded as lost articles because the money was not consigned on the basis of confidential relationship.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 횡령죄의 인정근거에 대한 비판적 검토
• Ⅲ. 점유이탈물횡령죄 등 그 외 재산범죄의 성립가능성에 대한 검토
• Ⅳ. 결론
• [참고문헌]
• [Abstract]

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정성근, "횡령죄의 제문제" 법조협회 34 (34): 1985

2 신동운, "횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계, In 한국형사법학의 새로운 지평: 오선주 교수 정년기념논문집" 형설출판사 2001

3 행위원회, "횡령죄와 배임죄" 법조협회 52 (52): 2003

4 김형한, "횡령죄에 있어서의 타인의 재물을 보관하는 자 -대법원 1999.4.15. 선고 97도666 전원합의체판결을 중심으로-" 대구판례연구회 2 : 1999

5 원혜욱, "횡령죄에 있어서의 위탁관계" 한국형사판례연구회 14 : 2006

6 박상기, "형법각론(제7판)" 박영사 2008

7 배종대, "형법각론(제7전정판)" 홍문사 2010

8 김성돈, "형법각론(제2판)" 성균관대학교 출판부 2009

9 오영근, "형법각론(제2판)" 박영사 2009

10 손동권, "형법각론(제2개정판)" 율곡출판사 2007

11 임웅, "형법각론(개정판 보정)" 법문사 2005

12 이형국, "형법각론" 법문사 2007

13 김진우, "점유이탈물과 선의취득" 대한변호사협회 (341) : 142-161, 2005

14 허일태, "위탁금전의 소비와 형법상 고유한 소유권개념" 형사판례연구회 12 : 2004

15 이정원, "우리 형법과 독일 형법의 횡령죄에 대한 비교법적 고찰" 한국비교형사법학회 4 (4): 11-298, 2002

16 권창국, "송금착오와 횡령죄에 있어서 위탁관계 및 점유" (3391) : 2005

17 허일태, "부동산 이중매매와 배임죄" 한국형사법학회 (15) : 2001

18 문형섭, "금전의 보관과 횡령죄, 형사판례의 연구: 지송 이재상 교수 화갑기념논문집 Ⅰ" 간행위원회 1995

19 홍승면, "금전수수를 수반하는 사무처리를 위임받은 자가 수령한 금전이 사무처리의 위임에 따라 위임자를 위하여 수령한 것인지 여부의 판단 방법 (2005. 11. 10. 선고 2005도3627판결: 공2005, 1999)" 법원도서관 (59) : 2006

20 大塚 仁, "大コンメンタ-ル刑法 第2卷(第二版)" 靑林書院 2005