업무상배임
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. In the new export insurance structure, since there was a suspicion of the authenticity of the export transaction by N and I, an importer, and the Defendants had the duty to change the export insurance structure through sufficient confirmation and examination.
(b) In particular, the special agreement allowing M to purchase on behalf of N does not go through such procedures despite the approval of the Director in charge in accordance with the short-term underwriting regulations.
C. Ultimately, the Defendants, while handling the underwriting of the instant insurance, excluded the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) from a special agreement on the responsibility for verifying the authenticity of the payment guarantee that was actually borne by the financial institution, thereby causing risk of property damage, such as the removal of a lawsuit from a financial institution.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The prosecutor of the amendment of the indictment made in the trial and found not guilty of the facts charged in this case as the primary facts charged, and as the name of the offense in preliminary, Articles 359, 356, 355(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act are Articles 359, 356, 355(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act.
C. A request for amendments to a bill of amendment was filed to add the “preliminary charges” as stated in paragraph (1), and this court permitted this.
B. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the prosecutor’s argument regarding the primary facts charged, the lower court determined as follows: ① The insurance of this case does not cover the false export transaction in addition to the real export transaction; ② the Corporation did not have any opportunity and possibility to examine the authenticity of the export transaction; ② whether the Plaintiff actually exported goods to N, and whether the N has granted the lawful and effective power of attorney to NM.