logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.12.16 2011노2645
업무상배임등
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed against Defendant A by B, C, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Defendant B, C

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, from the perspective of the council of occupants' representatives, the issue of the payment of the construction cost by Jun constructed Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter "Association") and the issue of processing provisional seizure on apartment buildings by its members is to request the Association to actively resolve the above problem on behalf of the occupants except for general buyers among the occupants. Thus, Defendant B does not constitute a person who administers another's business under Article 357 of the Criminal Act.

Since the council of occupants' representatives is not in charge of other persons' affairs, the defendant C, a female president, shall not be a person in charge of other persons' affairs.

(B) The Defendants did not receive illegal solicitation from the president A.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. (1) On the basis of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business obtains property or pecuniary benefits in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his/her duties. The "person who administers another's business" as the subject of taking property in breach of trust refers to a person who is acknowledged to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in light of the principle of trust and good faith in relation to the other person. It does not necessarily require that a third party has a fiduciary relationship in relation to his/her business, and it does not require that his/her business be entrusted with general affairs. In addition, the grounds for taking property in breach of trust, i.e., the grounds for taking property in relation to the conduct of business, legal acts, customs, or business management, and in relation to the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the "

arrow