업무상배임등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s return of construction business license of the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) and the return of the acquisition amount of equity shares constitutes the act of disposing of the most important and only the company’s property. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not undergo a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or prior consultation with F, and the repayment of the refunded equity shares and the use of the refunded acquisition amount, etc. for the victim’s cosmetics-related business, the Defendant may sufficiently be recognized that there was an intentional breach of trust to inflict property damage on the victim company and obtain personal benefits by violating his/her duties, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case,
2. Determination
A. From March 19, 2013, the Defendant, who was working as the representative director of the victim company from March 19, 2013, was a person who was working as the representative director of the victim company, and 300 million won of each of the F, together with the F, was invested in around March 2013 (each KRW 100 million purchase of shares in the company and KRW 200 million), and changed the name of the company for the purpose of construction business to the victim company at present
Therefore, as above, the defendant, who is the representative director of the construction company, shall maintain the construction business license essential for the existence of the construction company and return the construction business license to the construction business mutual aid association, shall go through the special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 374 of
Nevertheless, without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the Defendant received a return of the construction business license to the mutual aid association and deposited the same in the corporate passbook of the said company without a special resolution, and had the representative director withdraw it under the pretext of the provisional payment, and committed the following crimes.
The defendant on September 9, 2013.