logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2013.03.28 2010도7439
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임) 등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the violation of occupational breach of trust against the victim company A, E, and F, the crime of breach of trust is a requirement for the occurrence of actual damages or the risk of actual damage to property due to an act in violation of duties, so if the risk of such damage is not caused,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6490 Decided September 30, 2010). Moreover, an act of accord and satisfaction, etc. representing a company by a person who has been appointed as a representative director at a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of a stock company and forged the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders, etc. on behalf of the company cannot be said to have legal effect and thus, any damage to the company is not caused to such act. Thus, an act of a person who assumes the representative director does not constitute a crime of breach of trust unless there are special

According to the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court maintained by the court below, since around 1991, Defendant A had a claim for return of investment funds against C while carrying out the new construction of the instant apartment from around 1991, but did not have direct rights, such as stocks or investment refund claims, etc. against the victim company. Defendant C and B, the actual shareholder of the victim company, owned 50% of the victim company’s shares as an investor of the victim company from August 13, 2001, while they were participating in the management of the victim company, they were transferred their shares to Defendant A and the representative director of Defendant A was transferred their shares to Defendant A on February 4, 2007, the apartment owned by the victim company was to be paid as a substitute payment claim against the victim company, and transferred their shares to Defendant A as a whole.

arrow