특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. Around October 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around October 12, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract to return the said machinery again with the purport that notary public, in the office of law firm C, and in the office of law firm C, D and E, KRW 520 million, a debt of KRW 520 million to be paid to the victim on behalf of the Defendant; (b) the loan amount of KRW 520 million is KRW 520,000,000,000 and KRW 3,000,000,000, S team 44,000, and 1,000 (hereinafter “the instant movable”) in the form of money deposited in E-Si, E-si; and (c) the ownership of KRW 52,00,000,000,000,000 from January 26, 2017.
In addition, around February 13, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with the purport that the Defendant would return the instant movable property to the victim instead of the amount of KRW 500 million to be paid to the victim at the office of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City G building and the office of notary public law firm I, Law Firm D and E, and the ownership of the instant movable property is transferred to the victim. However, if the Defendant continues to possess the movable property and paid KRW 500 million by June 30, 2017, the Defendant would return the instant movable property again.
On June 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the Busan District Court located in the Busan District Court, the Busan District Court, prior to the Busan District Court, in order to keep and manage the instant movable property offered as security by means of transfer in accordance with the above contract; (b) in violation of this contract, the Defendant repaid the amount of KRW 139 billion out of the total amount of KRW 1,000,000,000,000 to the victim and sold the instant movable property at KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 80,000,000,000 and suffered property damages equivalent to the same amount for the victim.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal principle of breach of trust is that a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to do so by acting in violation of his/her duty.