In case where a company sells apartment units, whether the representative director of the company is a person who administers another's business in breach of trust (negative)

(A) In the event that the company has sold the apartment under construction to the non-indicted (B), it is clear that the company bears the obligation to register the transfer of the apartment to the non-indicted (B), and the defendant, who was appointed to the representative director after the above sales contract, is merely the representative agency of the company, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have a position of a person dealing with the above registration affairs against the non-indicted (B), and it is not related to the non-indicted (B) and the defendant

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No1089 delivered on May 14, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the crime of breach of trust under Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business commits an act in violation of his duty and causes damage to the principal by acquiring pecuniary advantage or having a third party acquire it, the principal of the crime is required to manage another's business. Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant was in the standing audit position of the above company at the time when the non-indicted 1 corporation sold the apartment under construction of the non-indicted 1 corporation to this non-indicted 1, and therefore the representative director at that time recognized the above sale contract was in the name of the above company and the defendant was in the name of the above company, and the above sale contract was made in the name of the above company, and then the defendant was appointed as the representative director of the above company. Thus, it is clear that the defendant bears the duty to register the transfer of ownership of the above apartment, and the defendant is merely the representative agency of the company, and it cannot be deemed that there is no other evidence to regard the above registration business as having relation with the principal and the other person under the crime of breach of trust.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)