배임
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) is that the victim was unpaid to the defendant in other accounts, and the defendant cannot refuse the payment of the instant guidance, and the defendant cannot refuse the payment of the guidance, thereby causing property damage to the victim, and the defendant was clearly aware of the fact that he would obtain property benefits equivalent to the amount of the guidance, so the defendant's intention of breach of trust is recognized.
2. Determination
(a) In the case where the pertinent legal principles have opposing claims against the designated fraternitys, and the declaration of set-off has been made on the same amount as that of the fraternitys, it shall be deemed that the duty of guidance prohibition has ceased to exist. Therefore, the refusal of guidance prohibition to the designated fraternitys does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.
(See Supreme Court Decision 84Do849 delivered on June 26, 1984, etc.). B.
The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, considering the detailed reasoning for its determination.
Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below were revealed as follows: (i) the defendant requested the victim to settle the accounts with the instant fraternity because the victim appears to have unpaid fraternitys in connection with the previous fraternitys that had been terminated before or before the date of the instant fraternitys payment; and (ii) there was a circumstance to suspect that the victim could have unpaid fraternitys for the previous fraternitys that the unpaid fraternitys could have been terminated (Evidence No. 16, 17 pages of the content certificate (Evidence No. 16, 16, 17 pages of the evidence record); and (iii) there was a circumstance to suspect that there was a circumstance that the victim could have unpaid the fraternitys for the previous fraternitys that had been terminated (Evidence No. 16, 26, of the content certificate (Evidence No. 16, No. 26, of the evidence record), investigation report (Attachment of the submitted counter-written evidence record) (Evidence No. 27, etc.).