[2] The case holding that it constitutes a crime of coercion that the operator of a golf facility notifies that he would not be treated as a member unless he/she files an application for registration with the contents that he/she consented to the alteration disadvantageous to the golf member

[3] The meaning of "a person who administers another's business" as the subject of the crime of breach of trust

[4] The case holding that it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust against ordinary members where the operator of a golf facility removes the date of members for ordinary members, and recruits special members with a preferential right to weekend reservation from among ordinary members

[2] The case holding that it constitutes a crime of coercion that the operator of a golf facility notifies that he would not be treated as a member unless he/she files an application for registration with the contents that he/she consents to the alteration disadvantageous to the golf member

[3] The crime of breach of trust is established when a person administering another's business obtains pecuniary advantage or let a third party obtain it through an act in violation of one's duty, thereby causing damage to the principal. Here, the "person administering another's business" refers to a person who acts on behalf of another's business or cooperates in the act of preserving another's property on the basis of bilateral trust relationship.

[4] The case holding that even if the operator of a golf facility removes the date of members for the general members and recruits special members having priority to the weekend reservation from among the general members and practically limits or deprives the general members of the right to weekend reservation, it is merely a non-performance of a civil obligation to the general members under a membership agreement, and it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust against the general members on the ground that the operator of a golf facility does not constitute a person who administers another's business, who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, on the ground that he does not constitute a person who administers another's business.

A. According to the records, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of habitual gambling and gambling opening among the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to gambling, habitual gambling, or gambling opening due to a violation of the rules of evidence.

B. The term "incrimination" refers to the act of obstructing another person's exercise of right by violence or intimidation or causing another person to perform an act for which one is not obligated, and the intimidation refers to the act of objectively restricting one's freedom of decision-making or informing a person of harm and injury likely to be drinking so as to obstruct one's freedom of decision-making (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3501, Nov. 22, 2002).

The lower court determined that the Defendant, who is the largest shareholder of the Co., Ltd., in collusion with Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 1 to the effect that he/she would be able to become a member of the Co., Ltd. under the Installation and Use of Sports Facilities Act by acquiring de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.

The above determination by the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of the crime of coercion, and it cannot be deemed that the notice of harm and injury can be accepted by social norms in light of social customs and ethics.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain it through an act in violation of one’s duty, thereby causing loss to the principal. Here, “a person who administers another’s business” refers to a person who acts on behalf of another or cooperates in the act of preserving another’s property on the basis of bilateral trust relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do902, Sept. 9, 1994).

In addition, the legal relationship on the operation of a golf club operated with the deposit membership system, in which a certain amount is deposited at the time of membership membership and the deposit is returned, is the contractual rights and obligations between the member and the company operating the golf club. Therefore, the rules on its operation were established by the company operating the golf club to apply the rules uniformly to many unspecified visitors, and it constitutes a content of contractual rights and obligations with the member who wishes to join the golf club (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da20714 delivered on April 9, 199, 99Da7084 delivered on March 10, 200).

The court below held that although the member of the Gwanak-do club naturally has the status as the member of the Mabaco clubs by acquiring the Mabaco clubs and operating the Mabaco clubs, the court below abolished the 'days of the Mabaco clubs operated by the Mabaco clubs', changed the rules to enforce the special membership recruitment system as mentioned above for the existing members, it did not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of breach of trust) because it did not constitute a principal agent of the charges on the grounds that the 246 special member recruitment system was changed to enforce the special membership recruitment system as mentioned above for the existing members, and thereby it did not actually limit or deprive the existing members of the right of the 246 special member recruitment system, and further, it did not exercise their rights as a member by rejecting the succession registration for the changed special member recruitment system, even though the Mabaco did not fulfill the civil obligation for the existing members under the membership agreement.

The above determination by the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act or breach of trust

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)