업무상배임등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. With regard to occupational breach of trust, in the case of a regional housing association, the executing company is normally promoting the project, unlike a reconstruction association. In addition, as alleged by the defendant, X, the representative of the executing company, as the representative of the defendant, proposed to establish a company capable of carrying out the sale agency for the defendant and the defendant, to complete the sale agency business, the executing company or X is responsible for a certain portion of the act of occupational breach of trust in this case, and the defendant did not play a significant role as the chairperson of a regional housing association.
Even if the Defendant had already entered into an agency contract for parcelling-out and carried out considerable part of the sales business, the Defendant established a separate agency for parcelling-out with his own children as its representative, and prepared a sales agency contract retroactively and received 600 million won from the Association with transfer of 600 million won as the commission for parcelling-out, and ultimately, caused property damage equivalent to 300 million won to the union. In light of the contents and methods of the crime as above, and the scale of damage, the act of breach of trust in this case is not only less complicated but also more strict punishment is required for the offense of corruption related to the association where many people's interests are complicatedly connected.
With regard to interference with business, the Defendant did not have any direct relation to this part of the crime, “The Defendant has made a solicitation to commission the sales agency business to the company under the name of K, and failed to comply with this part of the crime,” and the failure of the victim’s promise occurred several times thereafter was the cause of the crime, and Saturdays also argued that the Defendant was not actively instructed or led by the Defendant. However, the Defendant argued that “the victim’s oral promise was given in the victim’s investigative agency.”