[배임미수][집14(2)형,016]
Cases of failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the elements of the crime of breach of trust;
The crime of breach of trust under paragraph (2) of this Article is established when a person who administers another's business commits an act in violation of one's duty and thereby causes damage to the principal by acquiring or making a third party acquire financial benefits. Therefore, the subject of the crime must have the status of dealing with
Article 355 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Gwangju District Court Decision 65No336 delivered on February 7, 1966
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 as well as the defense counsel’s Hong-nam Ground of Appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant was the wife of the non-indicted 1, who was the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 9, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 96, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the defendant 96.
However, the crime of breach of trust under Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act is established since a person administering another's business commits an act in violation of one's duty and obtains pecuniary advantage, or causes a third party to obtain such benefit, thereby causing damage to the principal. Thus, the subject of the crime is required to manage another's business. However, the original judgment is the fact that the defendant died of his husband, and as a matter of course, as the defendant acquired his husband's status to handle the application affairs of reclamation license of the public waters of this case. However, unless there is any special reason, it cannot be said that the defendant has a duty to succeed to and promote the application affairs of reclamation license of this case as a matter of course, unless there is any special reason that the defendant's property heir is the same as that of the non-indicted 1, and it cannot be said that the defendant acquired the status of the victims as the subject of the crime of breach of trust due to his husband's business management. Furthermore, according to the original judgment's reasoning theory that the defendant did not have any specific duty to explain and to the defendant's property management of this case.
Therefore, without examining the facts of the crime of breach of trust, the court below acknowledged facts without using evidence, and found that there is an error of law applying Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act to the error of applying Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, i.e.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed in consideration of the defendant's appeal without examining the right and wrong of the other grounds of appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu