Where a person who deals with another person's business commits a breach of trust by means of deception, criminal liability;

If a person who handles affairs on commission of another person, in violation of his/her duty in the course of his/her management, deceptions the principal and takes property from the principal who is erroneous, fraud is established, and even if the elements of breach of trust are satisfied, it does not constitute a separate breach of trust.

Articles 347 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Doh-ho (as to the defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 81No167 delivered on June 2, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. Examining the evidence of the court below in accordance with the records, it can be sufficiently acceptable that Defendant 1 conspired with the captain and the kitchen of each ship in the judgment of the court of first instance to commit a fraud such as the original contents at the time of original sale, and it cannot be said that there is no violation of evidence-based law such as theory of lawsuit in the process of evidence preparation, and where a person who administers the business by entrustment takes property from the principal who takes part in his duties and takes part in mistake in the process of performing his duties, the crime of fraud is established, and even if the elements of the crime of breach of trust are satisfied, it is interpreted that the crime of breach of trust is not a separate crime of breach of trust, since the above captain and the kitchen, etc. made a false report on the quantity of goods purchased by them and received the price from the owner of the ship, and the defendant's act of receiving the price from the owner of the ship is not exempt from the liability of a crime of fraud as a joint crime of fraud.

2. A review of the evidence of the court below based on the records reveals that the gross sales in the business year 1978 of the defendant company were KRW 642,608,765, and KRW 770,893,411 for the business year 1979, and the defendant 1 reported this amount to KRW 706,937,880 for the business year 1979, and reported the difference to KRW 11,569,872 for the business year 1979, which was 63,95,531,000 for the business year 1978. The court below erred in the omission of the amount of KRW 11,569,72 for the business year 1978, which was 569,872,000 for the business year 1965,000 for the business year 1965,000 won for the business year 1965,000 for the defendant 1365.65

However, according to the records, in the case of this case where there is no evidence to deem that the sales cost in excess of 490,418,422 won reported as the sales cost in the business year of 1978 was spent, the sales cost reported shall be deemed to be the total sales revenue in the business year of the same business year. However, the court below recognized this as the sales cost in the gross sales amount reported and calculated the ratio of the total sales cost in proportion to the above omitted amount after deducting the sales cost from the above omitted amount, and calculated the tax base amount by calculating the tax base amount. In other words, according to the party member's calculation, the tax base in the business year of 1978 shall be 22,975,288 won, corporate tax base in the business year of 1978 shall be 8,390,115 won, and the defense tax base shall be 1,678,023 won, and the amount of corporate tax evaded shall be 4,609,437,000 won,8100 won.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)