업무상배임등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative (in-house director) of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) located in B at the time of racing.
The Defendant, around August 25, 2016, concluded a collateral security contract with the Bank of Korea of Victims (hereinafter “victim”) on the obligation to lend money to the victim, provided a factory site owned by the said Company as collateral. On the 26th of the same month, the Defendant provided 12 machinery owned by the said Company as collateral and provided the victim with an additional maximum debt amount of KRW 840,00,000 as collateral, and thus, the Defendant, as the representative of C, had a duty to manage and preserve the said collateral for the mortgagee.
Nevertheless, around March 2018, the Defendant established the right to collateral security and established the right to collateral security with the victim, as seen above, KRW 1,360D and KRW 451,00,000 in total, the appraised value of KRW 2,000 in PUMA TW2600-GL; hereinafter “the instant machinery”).
B sold Company D and removed it from the factory of the above Company, making it considerably difficult to grasp the location of the Company.
As a result, the Defendant concealed the instant machinery that was the object of the victim’s right, obstructed the exercise of the victim’s mortgage, and at the same time violated the duty, acquired property gains equivalent to KRW 451,00,000, which is the sum of the security value of the said machinery, and caused property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principle, the machinery of this case is not owned by C, but owned by the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s exercise of rights constitutes a crime of interference with the exercise of rights by selling the machinery of this case. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle as to interference with the exercise of rights. 2) The relationship between the Defendant and the victim with the public prosecutor (not guilty part of the original judgment) is simple monetary claims and obligations