배임
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal principle), the Defendant violated the duty to register the transfer of ownership to the victims, and thereby constitutes a crime of breach of trust against the victims by completing each registration of the transfer of ownership to others. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of breach of trust and thereby acquitted the victims of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the Planning Real Estate Co., Ltd., and the Defendant, as the head of the Planning Real Estate Co., Ltd., was at issue with the suspicion that D, an actual operator of the said Co., Ltd. embezzled the company’s funds, and sold the F-U.S. M. F-U. 762m2m2, G-U. 762m2, G-U. 763m2, H-U. 763m2 at a low price in the form of co-ownership
(1) Around April 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim K-si and Jeju-do Office for the three-story International Building Complex Development Co., Ltd. on a 20 square meters of land (hereinafter “1 land”) among the 762 square meters of the F-source in Seopo-si, Seopo-do (hereinafter “the first land”). A sales contract was concluded with the victim M on April 3, 2013 with the victim M on a 10 square meters of the above land. A sales contract was concluded with N on May 16, 2013 for the victims’ 20 square meters of the above land among the first land and the above 170 square meters of the land, and the victim’s share was paid the purchase price of KRW 170,000,000,000,000 from the victim’s ownership and 160,000,0000 won, respectively.
In violation of the above duties, the Defendant was above to P, Q, R, S, T, and U around 2013.