[특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(업무상배임)·상호신용금고법위반][공1996.9.1.(17),2561]
If the crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an illegal loan, the amount of damages and the value of property benefits acquired by a third party provided for in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment
If the crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an act of improper lending, the amount of loan exceeding the value of the collateral or the amount of loan actually impossible to be collected shall not be deemed as the amount of damage, and the total amount of loan with the risk of causing damage shall be deemed as the amount of damage, and if a third party acquires it, the total amount shall be deemed as the value of property profit acquired by the third party under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 356 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al.
Busan High Court Decision 94No1642 delivered on April 12, 1995
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
Examining the evidence admitted by the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the records, in view of the facts stated by the court of first instance, such as the fact that the defendant, as the chief director of the mutual savings and finance company, well-known the financial status and credit rating of the leather Housing Construction Co., Ltd., as the chief director of the mutual savings and finance company, loans more than four times the fixed loan amount without being provided with sufficient security, etc., the defendant is recognized as a crime of occupational breach of trust as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. (It does not change even if a third party, etc., who purchased real estate provided by the above credit safe company from the above company, provided the above company with repayment or additional collateral to the above credit safe, and eventually collects the above loan amount by providing the above company with the payment or additional collateral on behalf of the above company
In addition, in the event that the crime of occupational breach of trust is established through the act of improper lending, the amount borrowed in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to be recovered shall not be deemed as the amount of damage, but the total amount of the loan likely to cause the impossibility of exercising the property right or to cause damage shall be deemed as the amount of damage. If a third party acquires it, the total amount shall be deemed to be the value of the property profit acquired by the third party under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 8Do1247, Apr. 11, 1989), and the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the relevant legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit or in the
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)