Our Criminal Act Article 355 states that “A person who, having the custody of another’s property, embezzles of refuses to return it, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million won”. Furthermore Act Article 359 provides that “Attempts to commit the crimes specified in Articles 355 through 357 shall be punished”.However there is a debate over the legal character of “embezzlement”, that is a clash of opinions as to whether its legal character is “endangerment offenses” or “depriving offense”.In this context, during that time, the Supreme Court simply have showedthat the embezzlement is an endangerment offense. But, in this decision, the Supreme Court, to be more specific, states that its character is “offense provoking specific danger”.However, with reference to the consummated time of embezzlement, thegrounds presented by the Supreme Court is rather to support that the embezzlement is depriving offense. Because if the transfer of a real right by the delivery of movables or registration of real estate is enacted, it means that the benefit and protection of the law already is invaded.

[대상판결] 대법원 2012. 8. 17. 선고 2011도9113 판결, 춘천지방법원 2011. 6. 22. 선고 2010노197 판결
  1. 사실관계
  2. 항소심판결 요지(춘천지방법원 2011.6.22. 선고 2010노197 판결)
  3. 대법원판결 요지(대법원 2012.8.17. 선고 2011도9113 판결)
 [연 구]
  Ⅰ. 대상판결의 함의(含意)와 몇 가지 의문
  Ⅱ. 대상판결의 판결요지 및 논리에 대한 분석
  Ⅲ. 횡령죄에 있어서 미수 ․ 기수의 판단기준에 대한 검토
  Ⅳ. 횡령죄의 미수범 처벌규정(제359조)의 해석과 적용영역
  Ⅴ. 결론 - 침해범설에 의한 논리의 재구성
 [참고문헌]
 [Abstract]

• 김봉수(전남대학교 법학전문대학원 조교수, 법학박사) | Kim Bong Su