Around June 17, 1997, in order to build a new 4-2 block of housing site development zone in Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter omitted), 1997, with the approval of a housing construction project plan from Cheongju-si (hereinafter “○○ apartment”) to build a total of 478 households, the Defendant was short of funds while carrying out the apartment construction project. On December 13, 1997, at the main office of the ○○○ Bank (hereinafter “damage Bank”) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seng-si”), Nonindicted 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1, as joint and several sureties, etc., 4 billion won from 1998, 3 billion won from 198, and 9,000 won from 19,000 won from 19,000 won from 19,000 won from 19,000 won from 10,000 won from 195,000 won from 25,00 won from 161.

In the Daejeon Branch Office around December 28, 1998, Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Life Insurance”) (hereinafter “Tsung Life Insurance”), to obtain a loan of KRW 8.5 billion in total from Samsung Life Insurance on two occasions, and as a security, with respect to the above apartment house KRW 101,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the first priority priority of the maximum debt amount as indicated in the attached list of crimes (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and with respect to the above apartment house from 101,00,000 to 107,000,000,000 won, the sum of the maximum debt amount shall be KRW 10.8 billion, and the sum of the maximum debt amount shall be KRW 4.5 billion,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won, which was KRW 28.5 billion,000,000.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the amount of profit on property due to breach of trust

The crime of breach of trust under Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act 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 and thereby causes loss to the principal. It is not necessary to determine the actual amount of property damage as long as it is acknowledged that the execution of property right is impossible or that there is a risk of damage. However, in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes through breach of trust, it is deemed that the value of pecuniary advantage acquired through the criminal act is at least five hundred million won or more than five billion won, and the punishment for the crime is aggravated depending on that value. Therefore, in applying this, in applying this, the value of pecuniary profit acquired or the amount of damage caused by such act shall be calculated strictly and carefully.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's right to collateral security against Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to collateral security against Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to collateral security against Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and by exceeding the maximum debt amount of KRW 8.5 billion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to collateral security against Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and thereby exceeding the maximum debt amount of KRW 101,00,00,000,000,000,000,000 won as collateral against Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to collateral security against each of the apartment Co., Ltd., which affected Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and thereby exceeding the maximum debt amount of KRW 204,76,000,000,000,000,00 won.

In addition, considering the evidence such as a credit transaction agreement of the victimized bank, Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. submitted by the prosecutor in this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant has obtained 5 billion won or more, which is subject to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or at least 500 million won, as a breach of trust against the victimized bank, and there is no

B. Determination on the crime of breach of trust

Therefore, the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and only the crime of breach of trust can be established against the defendant's above act. The crime of breach of trust is defined as imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won under Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and the statute of limitations is a crime of five years under Article 250 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 249 (1) 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prosecution of this case is obvious in the record that the prosecution of this case was filed on December 24, 2007 after five years from the date of establishment of the first priority collective security right for Samsung life insurance. Thus, the statute of limitations for the crime of breach of trust has already been completed at the time of institution of the prosecution of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the point of breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case is that the statute of limitations expires, and thus, a judgment of acquittal is rendered in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Oeo-dae (Presiding Justice)