[2] Where a director, etc. of a company lends a company fund to another person constitutes a crime of breach of trust, and whether the same legal principle applies to the case where the other person is an affiliated company of a financing company

[3] The meaning of "an intention" as a subjective element for the crime of occupational breach of trust, and whether the intent of breach of trust can be recognized even if the act was committed for the purpose of rehabilitation of the entire affiliated groups (affirmative with qualification)

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to loan of funds

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains, or causes a third party to obtain, pecuniary benefits by acting in violation of one’s duty, thereby causing loss to the principal. Here, “an act in violation of one’s duty” includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected or by performing an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course under the provisions of law, the terms of a contract, or the good faith principle in light of the substance and nature of the business. The term “when an act in violation of one’s duty” includes not only real losses but also cases where an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal causes risk of pecuniary losses, and as long as the risk of property losses arises, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if the damage was recovered later, and the determination on whether property losses occurred shall be made based on an economic perspective in consideration of the principal’s property condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4857, May 14, 2007).

In addition, in order to establish the crime of occupational breach of trust, the perception of occupational breach of trust as a subjective element, and thereby, the perception that the person himself or a third party acquires the benefit and thereby causes damage to the principal, namely, the intention of breach of trust, and such recognition is sufficient with dolusent perception. A third party who acquires the benefit is an affiliated company of the same third party, and even if the result of the act was committed for the purpose of rehabilitation of the entire affiliated company group, even if it is an act for some one of the parties, the intent for his own benefit is only an incidental, and if it is proved that the intent for benefit or damage is the principal, the intention of breach of trust cannot be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do541, Jul. 23, 2009).

원심판결 이유 및 원심과 제1심이 적법하게 채택한 증거들에 의하면, ① 공소외 1과 공소외 2는 1998. 4. 27. 부동산 분양 및 임대업, 의류도소매업 등을 목적으로 하는 공소외 3 주식회사를 설립하였고, 피고인은 ○○○그룹에서 근무하다가 1998년 6월경 공소외 3 주식회사에 합류하여 공소외 1 등과 함께 위 회사를 경영하면서 유통업 분야로 사업을 계속 확장하게 된 사실, ② 공소외 3 주식회사는 2002년 5월경 공소외 4 주식회사 소유의 △△△△백화점을 분할·인수하여 공소외 5 주식회사를 설립한 후 2002. 7. 25. 증권거래소에 상장하였고, 2003년 4월경 공소외 6 주식회사를 인수하여 공소외 7 주식회사로 상호를 변경하였으며, 2004년 6월경 공소외 8 주식회사을 설립하여, 공소외 3 주식회사가 공소외 5 주식회사의 주식 43.43%, 공소외 7 주식회사의 주식 95.14%를 각 보유하고, 공소외 5 주식회사가 공소외 8 주식회사의 주식 92%를 보유함으로써 ▽▽▽▽그룹을 형성하게 된 사실, ③ 그 무렵 ▽▽▽▽그룹의 모회사인 공소외 3 주식회사의 주식은 공소외 1과 피고인이 각 32.3%, 그 외 직원주주들이 35.4%의 비율로 소유하고 있었는데, 공소외 3 주식회사(당시 대표이사는 피고인)는 2004. 3. 16. 공소외 1 등과의 사이에 공소외 3 주식회사가 공소외 1 등의 주식을 2004년과 2005년에 걸쳐서 이익소각하고, 그 대가로 제세공과금을 제외한 실수령액 기준으로 100억 원을 지급한다는 내용의 이 사건 이익소각계약을 체결한 사실, 공소외 3 주식회사는 공소외 1에게 위 이익소각대금의 일부로 2004년 12월경까지 합계 32억 6,000만 원을 지급하고, 2004. 12. 24. 공소외 1 등의 주식 일부에 대한 이익소각을 실행하여 2005년 1월 현재 공소외 3 주식회사의 주식보유비율은 피고인 41.49%, 공소외 1 19.51%, 직원주주 39%로 변화된 사실, ④ 그런데 ○○○그룹은 2004. 12. 27. 주권상장법인인 공소외 5 주식회사의 주식에 대하여 공개매수를 시도하였다가(공개매수 신청기간 2004. 12. 31.부터 2005. 1. 19.까지) 2005. 1. 20. 이를 철회하고, 그 이후 공소외 3 주식회사의 2대 주주인 공소외 1과 제휴하여 공소외 3 주식회사의 직원주주들로부터 그 주식을 매입하기 시작하여 11.74%의 주식을 매입하는 등 적대적 인수·합병을 추진하였고, 공소외 1은 2005년 1월경 공소외 3 주식회사에 이 사건 이익소각계약에서 약정한 이익소각대금을 미지급하였다는 이유로 이익소각계약의 해제를 통지하고, 자신의 주식을 이익소각 전의 상태로 원상회복하라는 내용의 민사소송을 제기하는 한편, 2005년 2월경에는 이익소각대금채권을 피보전채권으로 하여 공소외 3 주식회사의 신용카드대금채권, 예금채권 등에 대하여 채권가압류 결정을 받았고, 이로 인하여 공소외 3 주식회사가 추진 중이던 400억 원 규모의 자산유동화대출(ABL)이 무산되기도 한 사실, ⑤ 이에 공소외 5 주식회사의 대표이사인 피고인은 2005. 1. 27. 공소외 5 주식회사로 하여금 그 자회사인 공소외 8 주식회사에 40억 원을 무담보로 대여하게 하였고, 공소외 8 주식회사는 그 무렵 공소외 3 주식회사의 직원주주들로부터 공소외 3 주식회사의 주식 297,172주(주식비율 27.26%)를 1주당 40,000원씩 합계 118억 8,688만 원에 매수한 후 위 차용금으로 위 주식매수대금 중 일부를 지급하고, 나머지 약 80억 원은 2006. 6. 30.까지 지급하기로 약정한 사실, 위와 같은 ○○○그룹과 공소외 8 주식회사의 주식매입에 따라 2005. 3. 29. 현재 공소외 3 주식회사의 주식보유비율은 피고인 41.49%, 공소외 8 주식회사 27.26%, 공소외 1 19.51%, ○○○그룹 11.74%로 바뀌었고, 피고인은 2005. 3. 31. 공소외 5 주식회사로부터 그가 보유하던 공소외 8 주식회사 주식 중 43%를 12억 9,000만 원에 매수하여 종전 보유주식 6%와 합산하여 공소외 8 주식회사의 주식 49%를 보유함으로써 ▽▽▽▽그룹 전체를 완전히 지배하게 된 사실, ⑥ 한편 공소외 8 주식회사는 2004. 6. 25. 설립된 자본금 30억 원의 주식회사로서 2004. 12. 31. 현재 자산 총계 약 83억 원, 부채 총계 약 71억 원이며, 2004년도 하반기의 매출액은 183,851,559원에 불과하고 당기순손실 1,762,881,893원에 달하며, 2005년 1월경 공소외 3 주식회사의 주식 297,172주를 합계 118억 8,688만 원에 매수한 상태이므로, 이 사건 40억 원의 차용금 채무 이외에도 약 80억 원의 주식매수대금 채무를 부담하고 있었던 사실을 알 수 있다.

If the facts are as above, in light of the fact that the Defendant had Nonindicted Co. 8 purchase from employees of Nonindicted Co. 3’s shares 297,172 shares, thereby securing stable management rights for Nonindicted Co. 3 and immediately after that acquisition, the process of purchasing 43% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 8’s Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares, and the Defendant’s management of Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares with a link to Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares, which led Nonindicted Co. 5 to exercise control over the entirety of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△ group, the act of having Nonindicted Co. 5 lent KRW 4 billion to Nonindicted Co. 8 for use as a fund for purchase of shares can be deemed to have been aimed at strengthening the governance structure of the Defendant’s individual’s collective acquisition and merger against the entire ○○○ Group. The mere fact that Nonindicted Co. 5 owned the shares of Nonindicted Co. 3297 and Nonindicted Co. 17, etc., in fact by Nonindicted Co. 5 through the Defendant’s pro rata group.

However, it is clear that the non-indicted 8 corporation was established and was a new company for about seven months and was not dismissed from a large amount of interest in the second half of 2004. As of December 31, 2004, the net assets as of December 31, 2004 are not only 1.2 billion won, but also the non-indicted 3 corporation's share purchase amount of about eight billion won in addition to the loan amount of KRW 297,172 in the process of purchasing the shares of the non-indicted 3 corporation. The non-indicted 8 was not capable of paying the debt amount of KRW 4 billion in its own ability. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to view that the defendant's act was an act of causing the risk of property damage to the non-indicted 5 corporation and an act of management right to the above company by the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 1 corporation's defense to the non-indicted 00 billion won.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the act of lending funds in this case was an appropriate means of defense to protect the corporate value of Nonindicted Co. 5 and the ▽▽▽▽▽△ Group from a hostile acquisition and merger attempt by ○○○○ Group, etc., and was not a director’s breach of duty or a risk of causing property damage, and sentenced not guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of breach of duty and loss of occupational breach of duty, and such illegality was obvious to have affected the judgment.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) for offering collateral

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that (1) the non-indicted 3 corporation and the non-indicted 50 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 3 corporation were to be issued as collateral on February 2005 (the non-indicted 50 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 3 corporation and the non-indicted 50 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 3 corporation as collateral; (3) the non-indicted 50 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 3 corporation and the non-indicted 50 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 3 corporation as collateral; and (4) the non-indicted 3 corporation's sales revenue of the non-indicted 40 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 3 corporation and the non-indicted 50 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 46 billion won of the non-indicted 46 billion won of the sales revenue of the non-indicted 5 corporation.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable.

This part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational breach of trust, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the act of the Defendant’s offering of this case constitutes an exceptionally permissible act as “a major shareholder (including his specially related persons) who is a stock-listed corporation or a KOSDAQ-listed corporation in the course of carrying out normal business activities with the major shareholder (including his specially related persons) who is a corporation, and is exceptionally permitted pursuant to Article 191-19(1)2(c) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), and Article 84-24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20947 of Jul. 29, 2008).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below.

This part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 84-24 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to loan of funds is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and the prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)