대상판결의 쟁점은 채권양도인이 채권양도 통지를 하기 전에 채무자로부터 채권을 추심하여 금전을 수령하고 임의로 소비한 경우 횡령죄의 구성요건으로서 재물의 타인성과 보관자 지위를 인정할 수 있는지 여부이다. 종전 대법원 1999. 4. 15. 선고 97도666 전원합의체 판결(이하 ‘종전 판례’라 한다)은 이때 채권양도인이 수령한 금전은 채권양수인의 소유에 속하고, 채권양도인이 채권양수인을 위하여 채권보전에 관한 사무를 처리하는 자의 지위에 있다고 보아 보관자 지위를 인정하여 횡령죄의 성립을 긍정하였다. 그러나 종전 판례 이후 대법원은 동산 이중양도에 관한 대법원 2011. 1. 20. 선고 2008도10479 전원합의체 판결 등 다양한 이중처분 사안에서 권리이전계약·담보계약과 같은 통상적인 계약관계의 채무불이행으로 평가되는 행위에 대하여 배임죄의 성립을 부정하는 여러 건의 판결들을 선고하였다. 주로 배임죄에서 확립된 위와 같은 대법원 판례의 방향성에 비추어 횡령죄에 관한 종전 판례의 입장이 그대로 유지될 수 있는지가 문제 되었고, 종전 판례와 사안이 동일한 대상판결에서 직접적인 쟁점이 되었다. 이에 관해서는 종전 판례를 유지하여 횡령죄 성립을 긍정하는 견해(제1설), 종전 판례를 변경하여 횡령죄 성립을 부정하는 견해(제2설), 종전 판례를 유지하되 채권양도인에게 정당한 항변사유가 인정되는 경우에는 종전 판례가 적용되지 아니하고 이때는 횡령죄가 성립하지 아니한다는 견해(제3설)를 상정할 수 있다. 제1설은 채권양도인이 채무자로부터 추심하여 수령한 금전은 금전채권 행사의 결과물로서 채권양도의 당사자 사이에서 당연히 양수인에게 귀속되어야 하므로 재물의 타인성을 인정할 수 있고, 채권양도인이 이미 양수인에게 귀속된 타인의 재산에 관하여 관리 내지 보호를 대행하는 지위에 있으므로 보관자 지위의 전제가 되는 위탁신임관계를 인정할 수 있다는 점을 주된 논거로 한다. 제2설은 채권의 귀속과 이를 추심하여 수령한 금전의 소유권 귀속은 별개의 문제인데 채권양도인이 수령한 금전의 소유권이 채권양수인에게 귀속된다고 볼 근거가 없어 재물의 타인성을 인정할 수 없고, 권리이전계약과 같이 당사자 관계의 전형적·본질적 내용이 신임관계에 기초하여 계약 상대방의 재산을 보호·관리하는 데 있지 않은 통상의 계약관계에 있어서 횡령죄의 위탁신임관계를 인정할 수 없다는 점을 주된 논거로 한다. 제3설은 채권양도인이 양도의 대가를 확정적으로 지급받았는지 여부 등 개별적 법률관계에 따라서 완전한 권리를 이전하지 못한 채권양도인에게 정당한 항변사유가 인정될 수 있고, 이에 따라 행위의 배신성과 양수인의 재산권 침해 정도에 분명한 차이가 있으므로, 횡령죄의 성립에 있어서도 달리 취급되어야 한다는 취지이다. 대상판결은 심도 있는 논의를 거쳐 제2설을 다수의견으로 채택하고, 종전 판례를 변경하였다. 매매 등 권리이전계약이나 담보계약과 같이 타인의 재산 보호·관리가 본질적 의무라고 보기 어려운 계약에 관한 민사적 채무불이행으로 평가할 수 있는 행위를 형사처벌 대상으로 포섭하는 것을 배제해온 지난 10여 년간 대법원 판례의 방향성과 종전 판례를 유지할 경우 본질적으로 동일한 채무불이행 행위에 대하여 횡령죄와 배임죄의 성립을 달리 인정하게 되는 불합리를 중요하게 고려한 결과이다. 대상판결은 채권양도인이 양도 대상 권리를 행사한 결과물인 재물(금전)의 수령 및 임의처분이 매개됨으로써 배임죄가 아니라 횡령죄가 문제 된 경우라고 하더라도 본질적으로 권리이전계약의 채무불이행에 불과한 행위라면 처벌할 수 없다고 명시적으로 판단한 판결로서, 채무불이행에 대하여 형사법상 배신적 행위로 확대해석하여 배임죄나 횡령죄의 성립을 폭넓게 인정하는 것은 죄형법정주의에 반하는 결과로 보아, 횡령죄의 구성요건인 재물의 타인성과 보관자 지위를 엄격하게 해석하는 취지의 판결이다.

The gist of the subject case pertains to the question of whether the constituent elements of the crime of embezzlement, which are that: (1) the embezzled property must be in possession of another person; and (2) the embezzler must be in the position of the custodian of the property, can be considered to have been fulfilled in a case where the assignor of a claim collected the claim from the obligor, received money, and arbitrarily disposed of the money received before giving a notice of assignment. Previously, Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Do666 Decided April 15, 1999 (hereinafter “precedent”) determined that in a case such as the above, the crime of embezzlement is established, by viewing that: (1) the money received by the assignor of a claim belongs to the possession of the assignee of a claim; and (2) the assignor of a claim is in the position of a person who administers the preservation of a claim for the assignee of a claim, thereby constituting a custodian for the assignee. However, subsequent to the pronouncement of the precedent, the Supreme Court delivered a number of decisions concerning double disposition of movable property, such as Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do10479 Decided January 20, 2011, in which it rejected the establishment of a crime of breach of trust with regard to the acts assessed as nonperformance of obligations in an ordinary contractual relationship like a contract of rights transfer and a security agreement. The question of whether the stance of the precedent concerning the crime of embezzlement could be maintained as it is, in light of the orientation of the Supreme Court decisions mainly established in cases concerning a criminal breach of trust, has been at dispute, and this became a direct point of contention in the subject decision dealing with the same matter as in the precedent. There are three possible views on the abovementioned gist of the case: (1) the view affirming the establishment of the crime of embezzlement, as an extension of the precedent (first theory); (2) the view denying the establishment of the crime of embezzlement, as a reversal of the precedent (second theory); and (3) the view advocating for the adherence to the precedent, with an exception to the case where the assignor of a claim has a justifiable ground for defence, in which case the precedent does not apply and the crime of embezzlement is not established (third theory). The first theory is based on the reasoning as follows: (a) the money that the assignor of a claim collected and received from the obligor is an outcome of the exercise of a money claim, the ownership of which must naturally be reverted to the assignee, among the parties involved in the assignment of a claim, and therefore, the requirement that the property in question must be in possession of another person is satisfied; and (b) since the assignor of a claim is in the position of taking care of the management and preservation of another person’s property that was already reverted to the assignee, the entrustment relationship based on trust and confidence can be recognized between the assignor and assignee of a claim, which serves as the basis for the assignor’s position as a custodian. In the meantime, the second theory argues as follows: (a) the reversion of the ownership of a claim and the reversion of the ownership of the money received by collection of a claim are a separate issue, and since there are no grounds for viewing that the ownership of the money received by the assignor of a claim is reverted to the assignee of a claim, the requirement that the property in question should be in possession of another person cannot be considered to have been fulfilled; and (b) in a regular contractual relationship, such as the agreement to transfer a right, where the customary and fundamental characteristics of the relationship of the parties concerned are not related to the management and preservation of the property of the contractual counterparty based on a fiduciary relationship, the entrustment relationship based on trust and confidence as the requirement for the crime of embezzlement cannot be recognized. The third theory suggests as follows: (a) depending on individual legal relationships, such as whether the assignor of a claim received finally and conclusively the consideration in exchange for the assignment, it is possible that the assignor of a claim, who has failed to transfer a right, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances of any kind, may be recognized to have a reasonable ground of defence, and accordingly, there would be a noticeable difference in the severity of the breach of trust and in the magnitude of the infringement of a property right of the assignee between, for example, a case where the assignor has finally and conclusively received the consideration and a case where the assignor has not; and (b) therefore, the two cases should be treated differently with regard to the determination of whether the act of embezzlement has been committed. Through an in-depth discussion, the subject decision adopted the second theory as the Majority Opinion and changed the precedent. This is a result of having given serious thoughts to the orientation of the Supreme Court maintained for the past 10 years, which abstained from subsuming an act that can be assessed as non-performance of obligations under civil disputes concerning a contract, such as a transaction agreement to transfer a right or a security agreement, a fundamental objective of which is not necessarily related to the preservation and management of another person’s property, within the subjects of criminal punishment, as well as a result of taking into consideration an unreasonable outcome that may arise in the event of upholding the precedent, which would be to treat practically the same act of nonperformance of obligations differently, so to speak, one as the crime of embezzlement and the other as the crime of breach of trust. In the subject decision, the Supreme Court explicitly determined that the assignor of a claim cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement, even in a case where the assignor exercised a right subject to assignment, as a result of which the said assignor received property (money in the subject case), which he or she arbitrarily disposed of, thereby giving rise to the question of whether the crime of embezzlement, not the crime of breach of trust, is established, insofar as the assignor’s such an act is in essence merely the non-performance of obligations under an agreement to transfer a right. The Supreme Court viewed that it is against the principle of no punishment without law to stretch the law and interpret the nonperformance of obligations as an act of betrayal under criminal law and thereby to recognize broadly that the crime of breach of trust or the crime of embezzlement has been established. In sum, the subject decision strictly interprets the requirements for the crime of embezzlement, which are (1) the property subject to embezzlement should be in possession of another person; and (2) the embezzler should be in the position of the custodian of the property.

crime of embezzlement, crime of breach of trust, Article 355 of the Criminal Act, the requirement that the embezzled property must be in possession of another person, the right to ownership of money under criminal law, the position of custodian, entrustment relationship, entrustment relationship based on trust and confidence, double disposition, double assignment, assignment of a claim, a person who administers another person’s business