In case that a consignee who had pledged a mortgage over the realty under consignment agreement, places the same realty under the mortgage again or sells it to the 3rd party, the first mortgage constitutes an embezzlement. Then, can the second mortgage or the sales in the above transaction can constitute another embezzlement ? The Supreme Court ruling regards the second mortgage or sales in the forementioned example as unpunishable post-activities, which accordingly cannot constitute an embezzlement again. However, as the second action satisfies all the requirements of an embezzlement, it seems more appropriate to constitute additional embezzlement for the post-activity separate from the first. Such reasoning would prevent unreasonable outcomes where the second action requiring more severe punishment than the first action could avoid punishment.

[대상판결 1] 대법원 2000. 3. 24. 선고 2000도310 판결
  사실관계
  판결요지
 [대상판결 2] 대법원 1998. 2. 24. 선고 97도3282 판결
  사실관계
  판결요지
 [대상판결 3] 대법원 1999. 4. 27. 선고 99도5 판결
  사실관계
  판결요지
 대상판결 4] 대법원 1996. 11. 29. 선고 96도1755 판결
  사실관계
  판결요지
 〔연구〕
  I. 문제의 소재
  II. 불가벌적 사후행위
  III. 횡령한 부동산에 대한 횡령행위의 성립에 관한 논의 필요성
  IV. 후행행위는 횡령죄의 구성요건에 해당하는가
  V. 후행행위는 횡령죄가 성립하는가
  VI. 선행행위와 후행행위의 죄수관계
  VII. 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제 3 조와의 관계
  VIII. 끝맺는 말
  [참고문헌]
  [Abstract]

• 김대웅(서울중앙지방법원 부장판사) | Kim, Dae Woong