logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.08.24 2017도22
업무상배임등
Text

The judgment below

The conviction of each occupational breach of trust shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to occupational breach of trust

A. The crime of breach of trust is established when a person administering another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain it by acting in violation of his duty, thereby causing loss to the principal.

Therefore, even if a person who administers another person's business commits an act in violation of his/her duty with intent to commit a crime of breach of trust, it cannot be said that there is no property damage to the principal.

Here, “when a person inflicts property damage on the person” includes not only cases where a real damage was inflicted but also cases where a risk of actual property damage was caused, but also cases where a property damage was caused.

It is insufficient to the extent that the risk of actual damage to property, which can be assessed, has to reach the degree of specific risk, and that there is only a vague possibility (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do6745, Sept. 10, 2015; 2014Do1104, Jul. 20, 2017; 2014Do1104, etc.). Furthermore, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the act in violation of his/her duty causes a real damage to himself/herself or a real danger to his/her property has occurred.

B. The summary of the charge of occupational breach of trust due to N’s original supply contract is as follows: (a) as if the Defendant, the former director of the victim company, did not have the right of representation to conclude a contract in the name of the victim company, the Defendant ordered N to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the original cost by ordering N to obtain pecuniary benefits; and (b) caused financial losses by having the victim company bear the same amount of debt equivalent to the same amount.

The lower court, on the ground that the Defendant’s original act does not take effect in the victim company, may cause the victim company to be liable for the employer’s liability.

arrow