A. The meaning of "illegal solicitation" in the crime of taking property in breach of trust

B. Whether the occurrence of damage to the principal constitutes the elements for establishing a crime of taking property in breach of trust

A. In the crime of taking property in breach of trust, “illegal solicitation” refers to a solicitation that is contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith.

B. In the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the occurrence of damages to the principal does not affect the establishment of the crime.

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Do2081 Delivered on November 1, 1978

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 77No8781 delivered on December 28, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

We affirm the fact that the defendant received a bank check of KRW 1,00,000 in total face value under the case at the court of first instance with regard to the decision of the purchase price and the payment prior to the payment date in the purchase of the Center in this case, and there is no error of misunderstanding the evidence preparation, such as theory, in the process of fact-finding.

In the case of taking property in breach of trust as stipulated in Article 357 of the Criminal Act, the term "illegal solicitation" refers to a solicitation with the contents contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 78Do2081, Nov. 1, 1978). The Defendants responded to an increase in the purchase price from a clan to which they belong and an act of receiving money from a seller at the request of a seller before the due date for the payment of the agreement (transfer of ownership), and the act of receiving money in such a case is to acquire property in return for an illegal solicitation. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that supported the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in this purport, and it is not possible to adopt the theory that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or a misapprehension of the legal principles or the theory that there is an incomplete hearing, on the contrary to the opinion that there is no complaint in the crime of taking property in breach of trust.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)