업무상배임등
The judgment below
Among them, the guilty part against Defendant A, the guilty part against Defendant D, and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A [X-based Condominium (hereinafter referred to as “X-based aggregate buildings”)]
(1) The Defendant, while carrying out a security loan under X’s “W” with respect to the building X, was provided a sectioned building of X building as joint collateral, such as the entry in the column of “Security” in attached Table 1, and the value of the above joint collateral exceeds the principal of the loan.
As such, the defendant conducted a loan with sufficient collateral to recover the loan claims, and there is a concern that the recovery of the loan by the S Union T branch or the exercise of security right is impossible.
No such risk may be deemed to have occurred to the victim.
Therefore, although this part of the facts charged against the defendant did not meet the requirement of establishment, the court below convicted the defendant, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The appellate court of defendant C (misunderstanding of facts as to the occupational breach of trust relating to X building) shall judge without any need to examine whether the grounds for ex officio examination are submitted, or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal, if the appeal are lawful. However, with respect to any matter that is not the grounds for ex officio examination, it shall be limited to the cases where the grounds for appeal were stated in the petition of appeal or are included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period.
Even though it is possible to judge ex officio.
On the other hand, the defendant or defense counsel stated matters not included in the statement of grounds for appeal in the appellate court.
Even if there are grounds for appeal, such as the assertion contained in the statement, cannot be deemed to exist.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8488 Decided May 31, 2007).