배임
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (in fact and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) in the so-called collective credit security promise, the mortgagee is obligated to cooperate in preserving the obligee’s property by preserving the value of the claim which is the object of the security for transfer; (b) so, the Defendant, the representative director of the company, both the obligor and the secured company, constitutes “a person administering another’s business” against the obligee; and (c) such Defendant’s transfer
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant was not “a person who administers another’s business,” and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of breach of trust and thereby affecting
2. The agreement entered into on July 1, 2013 between E Co., Ltd. with the representative director (hereinafter “E”) and one-way E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) on July 1, 2013 is the so-called “Pre-Contract for transfer of collective claims” with the content that E will transfer to the victim company a lump sum of the claims currently or currently held or to be held by E in order to secure the obligation to the victim company. It shall be deemed that E grants the victim company the right of choice to choose the claims that E can be transferred or acquired from among the claims that E has against the customer, and the right of completion of the pre-contract with which the obligor can unilaterally complete the pre-contract, barring any special circumstance, to ensure the creditor’s obligation in accordance with the content of the pre-contract.
Therefore, the defendant who is the representative director of E who is the debtor is the creditor company.