beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On the charge of breach of trust, the owner is obligated to pay the fraternity money collected by himself to the designated fraternity, which constitutes “other person’s business” as referred to in the crime of breach of trust. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant’s failure to pay the fraternity money to the victims who cause the fraternity in this case was merely an “one’s business” and thereby acquitted the victims of the charge of breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. As to the fraud, even if the Defendant newly established a self-numbering system on June 27, 2014 and received a fraternity from the victim E, even if he/she operated the above number system until the end, thereby allowing the victim to take the fraternity or paying the fraternity which was not paid to the victim from the existing other numbers, and the Defendant obtained by deception the money equivalent to the amount of the fraternity from the victim with the intention of deception.
Since it is reasonable to see that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. As to the violation of trust, the lower court’s judgment (A) held that ① the accounting duties are defined as “the obligation to collect monthly payments from the members and to provide them to the designated members on the Time Limit Day designated under an agreement with the members of the fraternity.” Even when considering only such definition and the structure of the system itself, the accounting duties cannot be deemed as a principal’s duties by virtue of the effect of an agreement with the members of the fraternity. ② Within the accounting duties, the accounting duties include “the obligation to manage and pay the payment properly (a contractual obligation or a duty under the good faith principle) for the guidance,” but the “business of another person” and “business for another person” are clearly different concepts in terms of conceptual interpretation or literary interpretation.