beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015노3960

배임

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is clear that the defendant is in the position of business manager as the representative director of D, and according to all evidence, etc., he made the statement of E in support of the defendant's breach of trust, but the court below rejected it and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant did not participate in the act of disposing of the machinery of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) located in Ansan-si, Seoul.

D around October 31, 2012, at the central branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea located in Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 773-2, the Korean Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “the instant machinery”), the victim provided as collateral a small and medium enterprise loan of KRW 120 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea on April 30, 2013, with a loan extended by the victim’s Industrial Bank of Korea as of April 30, 2013, the victim transferred stiropo-type (hereinafter “the instant machinery”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24992, Apr. 30, 2013>

The Defendant had a duty to preserve the victim in order to achieve the purpose of security if the Defendant could not repay the principal and interest of the loan in accordance with the agreement while managing the instant machinery offered as security as above with due care as a good manager.

Nevertheless, on February 2013, the Defendant violated D’s duties, and caused E, etc. to dispose of the instant machinery to a person with no name, thereby causing property damage equivalent to KRW 6920,000 to the victim, and had a person with no name, obtain property benefits equivalent to the same amount of money, in order to resolve overdue wages against E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “E, etc.”).

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant ordered E, etc. to dispose of the instant machinery for the following reasons.