(a) Where there is an occupational duty to implement separate procedures for transfer of ownership with respect to several victims, the relationship between the occupational breach of trust and the occupational breach of trust committed in close vicinity to a single criminal intent (=real concurrent crimes);

B. The meaning of "amount of profit" under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic

(c) The relationship of fraud in which each fraudulent act of deception has been committed against several victims in the same manner under the single criminal intent and has acquired each of the property by deception (=actual concurrent crimes);

A. If there is an occupational duty to separately implement the procedures for the transfer of ownership to the victims, the benefits and benefits of each victim are independent. Therefore, even if the criminal intent is a single and the third party is close to the timing of each act of registering the transfer of ownership and the establishment of a new mortgage, even if the victims are those who have the same right to the registration of the transfer of ownership, the crime cannot be deemed as a single crime, and multiple occupational breach of trust are established independently by each victim.

B. The amount of profit referred to in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refers to the sum of the amount of profit or the amount of profit if the crime is established as a simple one crime, and it does not mean the sum of the amount of profit in the crime of which punishment is to be concurrent crimes.

C. In the case of deception by deception against each of several victims, each of them shall be a single criminal intent and even if the method of crime is the same, the damage legal interests of each victim shall be independent, so it cannot be understood as a single crime, and a crime of fraud is established independently for each victim.

(a) Article 37 of the Criminal Code. Article 356 of the Criminal Code. Section 1 of Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. Article 347 of the Criminal Code.

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Do582 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1103)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Yong-sik et al.

Busan High Court Decision 92No1513 delivered on February 18, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 and 3 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Defendant 2 and 3 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(1) Examining the judgment of the court below, Defendant 2, the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 1 corporation"), the defendant 3, the executive director, and the non-indicted 1 corporation's business plan for the first time after obtaining approval of the business plan and the construction permit for the non-indicted 1 corporation, the project undertaker of the non-indicted 1 corporation was changed to the non-indicted 1 corporation on April 10, 1989, and the agreement with the above large-scale housing was reached, the non-indicted 1 corporation purchased the above apartment from the non-indicted 1 corporation or the non-indicted 22 who purchased the whole or part of the purchase price of the apartment from the non-indicted 1 corporation on the non-indicted 10, the non-indicted 1 corporation, and the non-indicted 2 corporation's apartment on the non-indicted 10, the non-indicted 304, the non-indicted 200, the non-indicted 1 corporation's new apartment on May 16, 30, 197.

The argument that Nonindicted Company 1 did not have an obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment to the victims, and that the said victims cannot be deemed to have purchased the said apartment from the purchaser of the said apartment, and that the said Defendants did not have a criminal intent because the victims had known that they purchased the said apartment from the purchaser of the said apartment. Therefore, the argument that there was no criminal intention is merely an error of legitimate fact-finding, which is the exclusive

In addition, Defendant 2 and 3 believe that the obligation of Nonindicted Company 1 to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the above apartment was extinguished by the agreement of June 17, 1990 between the non-indicted Company 1 and the Non-indicted Company 1 and the victims on the ground that there was no justifiable reason to believe it. However, in light of the contents and the evidence mentioned in the above agreement in the argument of the lawsuit, it is not deemed that the above defendants were believed as above or there was a justifiable reason to believe it, and therefore, the above defendants did not have the intent of breach of trust.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is reasonable to view the above Defendants’ crime of occupational breach of trust in this case as a series of acts in light of the criminal intent, the subject of the crime, the time of the crime, etc., and thus, it was committed by applying Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Economic Crimes Act”) to each of the above Defendants

However, as determined by the court below, if Defendant 2, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, had a duty to separately implement the procedure for the transfer of ownership to the victims of the apartment of this case, the legal interests of each victim are independent. Thus, since the above defendants' criminal intent is a single and the timing of each act of registering ownership transfer and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is close in the third party, and even if the victims are those who have the same right to the transfer of ownership from Nonindicted Company 1, the above defendants' crime cannot be deemed as a single crime, and the above defendants' crime cannot be deemed as a single crime, and multiple business crimes are established independently for each victim (However, if Defendant 3 is not in the position to conduct the above business, it shall be subject to Article 35 (2) of the Criminal Act pursuant to the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act).

In addition, the amount of profit referred to in Article 3 (1) of the Act refers to the sum of the amount of profit or the amount of profit in a case where a crime of simple one crime is established, and in a crime which can be punished as concurrent crimes, the sum of the amount of profit in a crime of concurrent crimes, which is not the aggregate of the amount of profit. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the amount of profit in a crime of occupational breach of trust cannot be more than five hundred million won as provided in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, since the amount of profit in a crime of occupational breach of trust is calculated for

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the court below committed the crime of occupational breach of trust of the above defendants.

B. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(1) Notwithstanding the fact that the above defendants did not have the right to sell the apartment complex of the Mangman (the apartment complex of this case) and did not have the authority to sell it from the upper defendant 1 and the upper defendant 1 with the authority to sell it, on July 10, 1990, the defendant 2 has the right to sell the above apartment complex with the right to create the victim on July 10, 190, and the defendant 3 has the right to sell it properly with the delegation from the defendant 2, and he did so with the above victim's contract to sell the above apartment unit 1102, and he received 48 million won in total, such as down payment and intermediate payment from the above defendant from the above defendant 992 to August 6, 192, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence or in the judgment of the court below, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above, or in the records.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court punished the Defendants by applying Article 3(1)2 of the Special Economic Crimes Act, comprehensively, by applying Article 3(1)2 of the said Act.

However, in a case where each of the two or more victims of the fraud in this case has acquired property by deception by each of them ex officio, even if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is identical, the damage legal interest of each victim is independent, so it cannot be understood as a comprehensive one crime, and the crime of fraud is established independently for each victim (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do582 delivered on June 13, 1989). As duly established by the court below, if the above defendants committed deception against each of the victims of the fraud in this case, as legally established by the court below, the defendants' fraud is not a single crime, but a separate crime of fraud is established for each victim, and according to the facts duly established by the court below, the amount of profit of each of the victims in each of the fraud in this case does not exceed 50 million won under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment and Punishment of Specific Crimes. Therefore, the above provisions of the Aggravated Punishment and Punishment of Specific Crimes cannot be applied to each

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower judgment against Defendant 3 rendered a single sentence on the ground that each of the above offenses and the remaining offenses pointed out as unlawful in the application of the statutes are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment against the above Defendant shall be reversed in its entirety.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, it cannot be deemed that the above defendant 2 and 3 conspired to commit the act of occupational breach of trust against the defendant 1 on the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (occupational Breach of Trust) against the defendant 1, and therefore, we accept the court below's measures that acquitted the above charges, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 3 and their defense counsel, the part of the judgment below against the above Defendants is reversed and remanded. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)