If the stock owner refuses to pay a penalty on the ground of set-off, whether the crime of breach of trust is committed;

If it appears that the fraternity had the owner who was urged to perform the obligation from the non-indicted (A) to lend the obligation to the said owner after the date on which he received the obligation, but did not pay the loan after the receipt of the loan, and if it is recognized that the fraternity had the said owner made the payment to the fraternity jointly with the above (A) to offset the claim between the fraternity, the fraternity owner received the claim from the above (A) in lieu of the repayment of the above loan claim, and at the same time, it was deemed that the above (A) was transferred to the victim in lieu of the repayment of the above loan claim, and the previous (A) declared the intention of offset on the amount equal to the loan claim against the fraternity of the fraternity, and thus the above position of the supervisor was extinguished, therefore, the refusal by the fraternity to pay the fraternity to the fraternity does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.

Article 355 of the Criminal Act, Article 703 of the Civil Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 83No1186 delivered on March 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant and the above 100,000 won were collected from each of the above 100,000 won and each of the above 100,000 won of the above 80,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,0.

2. According to the records, examining the contents of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below in its findings of fact, it is acceptable to accept the records, and there is no evidence against the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, even though the defendant was the day when the time when the defendant provided the time for payment of the time limit to the victim's prior to the time of the payment of the time limit, and the time when the statement of offset was made, such as the theory of lawsuit, the defendant did not fulfill his obligation on the day when the defendant paid the time limit to the victim's prior to the time of payment of the time limit, as recognized by the first instance judgment, the defendant's failure to fulfill his obligation on the day when the defendant paid the time limit to the victim's prior to the time of payment of the time limit cannot be deemed to have been the result of breach of trust due to the defendant's failure to pay the time limit for payment of the time limit, and the defendant's prior to the first trial of the defendant's prior to the time of the first trial does not constitute a case where the defendant cannot set up against the creditor's prior to the time

Therefore, there is no argument that the judgment of the court below contains a misapprehension of the legal principles as to prohibition of offsetting and breach of trust.

3. Therefore, all arguments are groundless, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)