[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(인정된죄명:배임수재)][공1993.5.15.(944),1336]
(a) The case holding that it is an illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust that a representative of negotiating apartment buildings company (A) has made a request for an agreement and made a request for an agreement as soon as possible after significantly reducing the amount of compensation to 20,000 won for each household to the representative of apartment building occupants (B) to whom the negotiating authority was delegated with the authority to negotiate on the issue of demand for payment of compensation
(b) The case holding that the facts charged prior to the alteration of the ratio as a crime of conflict with the facts charged prior to the alteration that Eul received the money from Gap and the facts charged subsequent to the alteration of the ratio as a crime of breach of trust on the ground that Eul is a person dealing with the affairs of apartment occupants; and
(a) The case holding that the representative of negotiating apartment building company (A)'s request for consultation is an illegal solicitation for the crime of breach of trust, since the representative of negotiating apartment building companies (B) who has been delegated with negotiating authority on the issue of demand for compensation amounting to KRW 20 million per each household considerably reduced the total amount of compensation to KRW 20,000,000,000,000 for each household;
B. The case holding that the facts charged prior to the alteration of the ratio of the charges prior to the alteration and the charges subsequent to the alteration of the ratio of the charges prior to the alteration of the charges against the receipt of the funds from Gap and the charges subsequent to the alteration of the ratio to the charges of taking property in breach of trust are identical.
A. Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant 1 and six others
Defendants
Attorney Soh Hong-kn et al.
Busan District Court Decision 92No590 delivered on July 15, 1992
All appeals are dismissed.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the grounds of appeal by Defendant 6, and 7
In the records of this case, it is not recognized that each statement of the suspect examination protocol against the Defendants prepared by the prosecutor was made under conditions to doubt the voluntariness among the evidences which the court below affirmed as evidence of guilt. Rather, since all the defendants recognized the authenticity and decentralization on the second day of the court of first instance, the admissibility of evidence is recognized. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and presented by the court of first instance such as the statement of each suspect examination protocol, etc., the defendants were elected from the apartment occupants and constructed the above apartment as the representative of the apartment, and the defect repair issue and the sale advertisement as the apartment of the above apartment as the housing association upon the sale of the above apartment, it is recognized that the defendants conspired with the non-indicted 1 company and the non-indicted 1 company did not join the housing association and did not receive tax benefits on the ground that they did not receive monetary benefits on behalf of the occupants, it is recognized that the above defendants' negotiation affairs were conducted on behalf of the non-indicted 2,000 won for each household's request for the payment of compensation to the above apartment.
Therefore, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that maintained the court of first instance that recognized the facts charged of the instant property in breach of trust are justifiable, and further, whether the contents of the agreement between the Defendants and Nonindicted Company 1 was unfair or infringed on the rights of apartment occupants are not a complaint to recognize the facts charged of the instant property in breach of trust.
In the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the crime of taking property in breach of trust. The arguments are without merit
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, 2, and 3
According to the records, the prosecutor prosecuted the defendants as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but the defendants denied the crime in the court, on December 20, 191, when the defendant applied for the amendment of the indictment as the charge of the violation of trust in the case of this case. The court of first instance permitted it at the third trial date and examined him as a witness at the third trial date, and issued a judgment of conviction without delay. Thus, the facts before the amendment and the facts charged of the violation of trust in this case are recognized as identical facts and identical to the facts charged. Thus, the permission of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant did not give the defendant an opportunity to defend, or the victim did not have been identified in the facts charged.
In addition, the lower court’s order the Defendants to additionally collect KRW 2 million received from Nonindicted 2 is also justifiable. The arguments are without merit.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)