교비회계자금 유용에 대한 형사책임 - 대법원 2012. 5. 10. 선고 2011도12408 판결 -
Criminal Policy of the Embezzlement in the School
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Fraud and embezzlement are pervasive problems in the educational establishment in Seoul, Korea. Students and their parents are exposed to risks of embezzlement by business leaders and managers. For example, a manager of a school might withdraw funds from a school’s account, hoping to repay the embezzled funds in the future. Conflicts arise when people (the agents) entrusted to look after the interests of others (the principals) use their authority and power for their own benefit instead. In one signature case examined in this paper, a school official misappropriated millions of dollars from school accounts for home remodeling work done while superintendent, creating fraudulent paperwork and submitting false invoices that described the work as being performed at the district’s schools. The official betrayed the public’s trust. Even though full restitution was made, the damage was done. Although not normally viewed in this light, superintendents actually manage a large corporation with significant financial responsibilities in functional areas such as instruction (teacher salaries, textbooks, etc.), support services (school maintenance, nurses, administration, library, etc.), and other non-instructional services (food service, bookstore, etc.). For this reason, top educational officials, such as school superintendents, should be held to the same high level of accounting and ethical standards as are top officials of large corporations. Specifically, superintendents should be held accountable when moving money in and out of accounts and there should be guidelines to follow to avoid inappropriate financial transfers. Superintendents and other school officials need to be extremely conscientious, have high ethics, and put into place a policy of checks and balances that monitor withdrawal of funds so that it makes embezzlement and misappropriation of funds difficult to achieve.
Abstract
Fraud and embezzlement are pervasive problems in the educational establishment in Seoul, Korea. Students and their parents are exposed to risks of embezzlement by business leaders and managers. For example, a manager of a school might withdraw funds from a school’s account, hoping to repay the embezzled funds in the future. Conflicts arise when people (the agents) entrusted to look after the interests of others (the principals) use their authority and power for their own benefit instead. In one signature case examined in this paper, a school official misappropriated millions of dollars from school accounts for home remodeling work done while superintendent, creating fraudulent paperwork and submitting false invoices that described the work as being performed at the district’s schools. The official betrayed the public’s trust. Even though full restitution was made, the damage was done. Although not normally viewed in this light, superintendents actually manage a large corporation with significant financial responsibilities in functional areas such as instruction (teacher salaries, textbooks, etc.), support services (school maintenance, nurses, administration, library, etc.), and other non-instructional services (food service, bookstore, etc.). For this reason, top educational officials, such as school superintendents, should be held to the same high level of accounting and ethical standards as are top officials of large corporations. Specifically, superintendents should be held accountable when moving money in and out of accounts and there should be guidelines to follow to avoid inappropriate financial transfers. Superintendents and other school officials need to be extremely conscientious, have high ethics, and put into place a policy of checks and balances that monitor withdrawal of funds so that it makes embezzlement and misappropriation of funds difficult to achieve.
참고문헌 (33)
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2008), SKKUP
- 배종대, "형법각론" (2012), 홍문사
- 문형섭, "재산범죄론의 이해" (2006), 전남대학교출판부
- 김선복, "재산상의 이익은 재산죄의 객체인가?", 비교형사법연구, 6(1), pp.91~112 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김성균, "橫領과 課稅", 중앙법학, 13(4), pp.711~747 (2011), 중앙법학회
- 김재윤, "횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계 － 문형섭 선생의 횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계에 대한 이해를 중심으로－", 법학논총, 30(1), pp.131~155 (2010), 법학연구소
- 김태업, "용도가 추상적으로 정해진 보관금과 업무상 횡령죄의 불법영득의사에 관한 입증책임자 및 입증방법", 대법원판례해설, 84 (2010)
- 류전철, "배임죄에서 재산상 손해발생의 위험", 법학논총, 30(1), pp.107~130 (2010), 법학연구소
- 문형섭, "횡령죄와 배임죄", 법조 (2003)
- 문형섭, "불법영득의 의미와 대상", 형사법연구, 23(4), pp.171~192 (2011), 한국형사법학회
- 성낙현, "횡령의 객관적 구성요건의 실체", 법조, 54(10), pp.19~46 (2005), 법조협회
- 송동섭, "학교법인의 조세제도에 관한 소고", 조세연구, (7)
- 신동운, "횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계, 한국형사법학의 새로운 지평, In 오선주 교수정년기념 논문집" (2001)
- 오영근, "재산범죄의 체계에 대한 한․독 형법의 비교연구"
- 오영근, "한국형법학의 독자성 찾기", 형사법연구, 23(3), pp.35~60 (2011), 한국형사법학회
- 오영근, "불법영득의사", 고시계 (2002)
- 윤동호, "형법 제40조 ＂1개의 행위＂의 의미와 범주", 형사법연구, (26), pp.297~320 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 윤동호, "에버랜드 전환사채 헐가발행 사건 대법원 판결(2007도4949)의 중대한 오류", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.365~382 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 윤순석, "횡령 및 배임사건 기업에 관한 연구", 2010년 한국전산회계학회 춘계할술발표대회 (2010)
- 이경열, "재산범죄와 불법령득의 의사", 법조, 53(11), pp.51~80 (2004), 법조협회
- 이상도, "산학연 관련 조세제도 연구", 조세연구, 11(3), pp.330~358 (2011), 한국조세연구포럼
- 이석배, "횡령죄와 배임죄의 관계", 동아법학, (46), pp.367~393 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이재상, "횡령과 배임", 고시계 (1989)
- 이정민, "경영판단원칙과 업무상 배임죄", 형사정책연구, 18(4), pp.159~188 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이정원, "우리 형법과 독일 형법의 횡령죄에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 비교형사법연구, 4(2), pp.11~298 (2002), 한국비교형사법학회
- 사립대학의 감사지적사항 사례분석에 의한 재무회계관련법 및 제도개정방향, 국회 교육과학기술위원회 국정감사 정책자료집, "이종걸", ~ (2009)
- 이주원, "횡령죄에 있어서의 상계충당과 불법영득의사의 존부", 안암법학, (30), pp.75~107 (2009), 안암법학회
- 임웅, "재산범죄에 있어서 ‘재물’과 ‘재산상의 이익’ 개념에 대한 비판적 고찰", 형사법연구, 21(4), pp.359~374 (2009), 한국형사법학회
- 정영일, "횡령죄의 구성요건", 고시계 (2005)
- 정진후, "사립학교 비리 이대로 둘 것인가?, 2012. 8. 1. 국회의원 신관 2층 세미나자료" (2012)
- 하태영, "횡령죄에서 ‘타인의 재물을 보관하는 자’의 의미", 동아법학, (43), pp.733~759 (2009), 법학연구소
- 한상훈, "상상적 경합의 유형, 효과에 대한 재검토와 형법 제40조의 입법론", 형사법연구, 22(1), pp.217~240 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 허일태, "위탁금전과 형법상 소유권개념", 비교형사법연구, 5(1), pp.11~286 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회