(a) A principal subject of breach of trust with respect to another person's business which is obligated to be handled by a corporation;

(b) The time when the crime of breach of trust is enforced due to a double transfer of real estate;

A. As to the business of another person who is obligated to perform by a corporation, the corporation cannot be the subject of the crime of breach of trust, and the representative body which is a natural person executing business on behalf of the corporation shall be the subject of the crime of breach of trust.

B. If a real estate seller who is obligated to cooperate with the buyer in the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the real estate seller violates his/her duty and again provides the buyer with the security for the borrowed money, and the provisional registration has been completed, the act of breach of trust is completed, and the act of breach of trust has already been completed.

(b)Paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Criminal Code;

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2595 Delivered on October 10, 1984

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Young-ju (Defendant 1)

Busan District Court Decision 83No157 delivered on March 17, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

1. First, Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance that the court below maintained, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts of the offense No. 5 in the judgment against the defendant, and the defendant's act is justified. With respect to the other person's business that is liable to handle, a corporation cannot be the subject of the offense of breach of trust, and the representative agency that is a natural person that administers another's business on behalf of a corporation shall be the subject of the offense of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2595 delivered on October 10, 1984). In addition, in the case of this case where provisional registration is made by providing a security for the borrowed money as a seller in violation of his/her duties as stated in the judgment, the act of breach of trust by completing the provisional registration procedure, and it cannot be said that there has any effect on the already established offense of breach of trust.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is without merit, such as incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the crime of breach of trust, and violation of precedents.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the evidence that the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, the facts of the crime No. 3 in its holding can be sufficiently recognized, and there are no errors in finding the facts of the crime without the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation or evidence. The theory that the seller of the apartment of this case is a non-corporate corporation, and the above defendant, the representative director of the non-indicted corporation, is not entitled to be the subject of breach of trust with respect to the sale of the apartment of this case is without merit as seen above, and even after examining the record, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge the theory that the crime of breach of trust cannot be established since Kim Ducheon, the apartment purchaser of this case, was disposed of after the cancellation of the sales contract.

For points 3 to 6:

According to the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance, since it can be sufficiently recognized the criminal facts of the defendant as set forth in (a), (b), (c), (2) and (4) of the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be said that there are any unlawful grounds such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the following prosecutor.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, we affirm the charges of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against the defendants and the charges of violation of trust against the victims of the victim of the victim of the victim of the victim of the defendant 1 and 2, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. Ultimately, we cannot accept the charges of violation of the rules of evidence and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the court below.

3. Accordingly, all of Defendant 1’s appeals and prosecutor’s appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)