업무상배임
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
(b).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A, B, and C1 is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle). Defendant C is in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) (Defendant C refers to the “G clan,” the seller of the instant real estate, at the time of the instant loan.
The same applies hereinafter) was unaware of the qualification of the president (representative), and the loan procedure was conducted in accordance with the FF association’s credit-related regulations and business practices, etc. (hereinafter “the instant association”), and the head of the affairs division in charge of the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate was conducted after checking that there was no error in the relevant documents. In order to enhance the performance of the instant association’s loan, the instant loan was conducted, and there was no fact that the said Defendant or the third party intended to gain any profit. Accordingly, the Defendant C did not have any intent to commit a violation of duties or occupational breach of trust in relation to the instant loan.
B) The violation of the Credit Cooperative Act (Defendant C) was found to have been committed by the Defendant C as a de facto debtor by eight loan debtors, including D, and thus, there was no awareness or intention on the excess of the lending limit to the same person under the Credit Cooperative Act.
C) There is occupational breach of trust (the occupational duty that should not be an act such as returning the already secured advance payment interest, etc.) such as the description of the facts charged to Defendant A, B, and C.
shall not be deemed to exist.
The above defendants' repayment of interest for advance payment is an inevitable measure to secure the security for the loan of this case and therefore there is no intention of occupational breach of trust.
D, as the obligor has the right to dispose of the interest on advance payment, it is the instant union due to the refund of advance payment.