beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is the representative of the FF engaging in the business of producing electronic components, etc. in Sinpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, and the victim G served as a director in charge of the research and development of new products from January 2, 2013 to November 8, 2013 (State).
On May 24, 2013, the Defendant lent KRW 15,00,000 to the victim at the above (State) Office, and transferred three patent rights, including “H,” owned by G, to secure the loan of KRW 15,00,000, to F, and reserved the transfer of the above patent until December 31, 2014 at the full payment date of the loan. If G fails to repay, the Defendant agreed to transfer the said patent to F as of January 1, 2015.
After that, the Defendant received the registration of transfer of two of the above patent rights from the injured party on June 25, 2014, and received full repayment of KRW 15,00,000 from the injured party on August 19, 2014, and accordingly, the Defendant had the duty to re-transfer the two registrations of the above patent rights to the injured party pursuant to the above agreement.
Nevertheless, on August 19, 2014, the Defendant refused the request of the victim to transfer the registration name of the patent, and continued to hold two patent rights in the name of F, thereby obtaining economic benefits in the market price and causing financial losses equivalent to the same amount to the victim.
2. The crime of breach of trust stipulated in Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act is established when a person administering another’s business commits an act in violation of one’s own or a third person’s pecuniary advantage, thereby causing loss to the principal. As one of the elements for the crime of breach of trust, one must be the person administering another’s business, who has breached one’s duty, must be aware that the other person’s business has breached one’s duty, and that the other person’s business has breached one’s duty. In the absence of such awareness, the intent of breach of trust should be avoided (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Feb