(a) In a case where the transferor fails to pay the monthly payment from the fraternity to the designated fraternity without any justifiable grounds despite the collection of all the monthly payment from the fraternity, whether it constitutes a crime of breach of trust

(b) Relationship between the rights and obligations of the fraternity and the caution;

(c) The case holding that, in case where the fraternity has deprived of an opportunity for the fraternity member to evade the fraternity member to receive the successful bid by making a false statement to the fraternity member who has paid the fraternity member faithfully, the breach of trust on the part of the fraternity member constitutes a breach of trust as above;

A. In the event that the fraternity did not pay the monthly payment from the fraternity to the designated fraternity without any justifiable reason despite the collection of all the monthly payment from the fraternity, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust in relation to the designated fraternity, unless there are other special circumstances.

(b) The fraternity is established and maintained on the basis of the contractual relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity, and the rights and obligations of the fraternity and the fraternity are mutually exchanged and one party has faithfully fulfilled the basic arrangement, the other party has the duty to faithfully perform its corresponding obligations.

C. The case holding that the breach of trust in relation to the above breach of trust is established in the relation of the fraternity, in case where the fraternity member was deprived of an opportunity to evade the fraternity by attending the fraternity and being awarded a successful bid, on the ground that the fraternity member, who paid the fraternity in good faith during the normal operation, has broken down the fraternity member who paid the fraternity in good faith.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Do230 delivered on July 22, 1986, 86Do1744 delivered on February 24, 1987, and 93Do2221 delivered on March 8, 1994

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 94No5915 delivered on April 19, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

Unless there are other special circumstances, the breach of trust is established in relation to the designated fraternity, unless there are other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do221 delivered on March 8, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, that the victim booms paid the entire amount in good faith by the defendant as the fraternity of the successful bid of this case organized by the defendant as the leader of the defendant, attended the 15th conference and won awarded the contract, and the defendant did not pay the fraternity to the victim even though he fully collected the fraternity from the fraternity members. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the violation of trust, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

The fraternity is established and maintained on the basis of the contractual relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity, and if either party is mutually exchanged and faithfully performing a basic agreement, the other party has the duty to faithfully perform its corresponding duties (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2343, Jun. 23, 1987). If the fraternity has faithfully performed its duty to pay the fraternity, which is the most basic element of the contents of the contract, in the successful bid, the fraternity has the duty to provide the fraternity with an opportunity to receive the successful bid and avoid the fraternity, barring special circumstances, such as where the fraternity has been playing its normal operation, and if the fraternity has faithfully paid the fraternity, even though the fraternity has been performing its duty, it constitutes a breach of trust relationship with the fraternity by taking advantage of its opportunity to receive the successful bid.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, found the defendant as the crime of breach of trust by recognizing the fact that the victim suffered damages equivalent to the amount awarded in the judgment of the court below by allowing the victim to attend and participate in the fraternity as a result of settling accounts of the fraternity, and deprived the victim of the opportunity to participate in the fraternity, by taking advantage of the fact that the victim's order was correct in finding the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the crime of breach of trust by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)