[1] Whether the act of unfair loans by the president of a credit union and occupational breach of trust is established

[2] Whether a crime of breach of trust may be established in a case where a loan to an unqualified loan owner by another person’s account constitutes a crime of breach of trust in a case where the total amount of the loan exceeds the amount of the loan limit on the principal’s own account (affirmative)

[1] In a case where the president of a credit union established to promote the raising and use of funds through a cooperative organization among persons with mutual ties, thereby in violation of his/her duty and thereby making loans to non-members or non-qualified persons in excess of the amount of loans set by the limit of loans, such loans would result in an unfair reduction of the funds to be properly lent to other union members, thereby causing property damage to the union regardless of whether the loans can be recovered or the security is appropriate, and as long as the president's breach of duty is recognized, even if prior examination and resolution have been made by the credit committee within the union, such loans shall not affect the establishment of a crime of occupational breach of trust.

[2] In determining whether a loan exceeds the lending limit to the same member, a loan granted under the name of another person on his own account shall be deemed a loan to be its own account (the proviso of Article 42 of the Credit Union Act amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998 (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998). In this case, even if a former loan owner is a non-member or non-qualified person, and a loan to an unqualified person is punished as a separate act of breach of trust, if the total amount of the loan including the loan amount and the additional loan amount

[1] Articles 35(2) and 356 of the Criminal Act; Article 23(4) of the former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998; see current Article 27(4)) / [2] Articles 355(2) and 356 of the Criminal Act; Article 32 of the former Credit Unions Act (amended by Act No. 5506 of Jan. 13, 1998; see current Article 42)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1436 delivered on September 25, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Young-hoon et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 99No56 delivered on September 30, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the defense counsel's grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of each ground of appeal submitted after the lapse of the period).

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below reasoned that the defendant, the president of the non-indicted 1 cooperative, was duly examined and adopted at the court of first instance, stated in the receipt book of loan application by its employees and stated in the register of the non-indicted 1 cooperative members, and had them receive and process the loan application in a regular manner only after he first approved it through co-defendant 1, the credit chief of the union. In each of the loans of this case, each of the actual loan of this case was purchased or leased from the defendant, or was related to the defendant or the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 6's request for convenience for the purchase of the commercial building of this case or for the purpose of promoting their own interests, the defendant and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 90's non-indicted 4's own interest in the loan of this case.

Meanwhile, in a case where the president of a credit union established to promote the raising and use of funds through a cooperative organization among the persons with mutual ties with general financial institutions makes loans in violation of his/her duties or loans to non-members or non-qualified persons in violation of his/her duties by seeking the profit of himself/herself or a third party, such loans shall be deemed to have suffered property damage to the union regardless of whether it is possible to recover the loans or the appropriateness of the security, and as long as the chief director's performance of duties is recognized, even if he/she conducted prior examination and resolution by the credit committee within the union, it shall not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1436, Sept. 25, 198). In addition, in determining whether the loans to another person's account exceed the loans limit to the same member, a separate loan should be deemed to have been made by the principal in violation of his/her duties, and even if the loans exceed the amount of loans to which the former non-qualified loan holder or non-qualified person is subject to a separate punishment.

Examining the record on the premise of these legal principles, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of each of the lending acts of this case on the ground that it does not affect the establishment of a crime of breach of trust even if the defendant conducted each of the lending acts of this case by the examination and resolution of the Credit Committee, even if he conducted each of the lending acts of this case and conducted each of the lending acts of this case in excess of the prescribed amount of lending limit by promoting the interest of himself or a third party and in violation of his duties, and as long as the risk of damage was caused, it does not affect the establishment of a crime of breach of trust even if some of the collateral was established or the damage was recovered after the loan was collected after the occurrence of each of the lending acts of this case, and even if there was a provision that the business conducted before the amendment of the credit regulations of the union after the completion of each of the lending acts of this case, it

Ultimately, there is no reason for appeal that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, the incomplete deliberation, or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of the crime of breach of trust, etc. In addition, with respect to the loan act of June 30, 1993 against Nonindicted 2, the grounds for appeal that asserted the acquittal of this part of this case which was brought before seven years have passed since the statute of limitations for the crime of breach of trust was expired cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)