[1] In a case where a crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an insolvent loan, the scope of damages (=total amount of loans) and in a case where a third party acquires the above loan, the scope of "value of property benefits acquired by a third party" under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[2] The meaning of amount of profit under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[1] Where the crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an insolvent loan, the amount borrowed in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to be recovered shall not be deemed as the amount of damage, and the total amount of the loan with the risk of causing damage shall be deemed as the amount of damage, and where a third party has acquired it, the total amount shall be deemed as the property value acquired by the third party stipulated in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[2] The amount of profit under Article 3 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 of simple crime is constituted.

[1] Article 356 of the Criminal Code, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes / [2] Article 3 of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do1247 delivered on April 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 781) Supreme Court Decision 95Do1043 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2561) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Do582 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1103) Supreme Court Decision 93Do743 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2193)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Postal Authority

Daegu High Court Decision 9No445 delivered on December 14, 1999

The appeal shall be dismissed. The ninety days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the defendant and public defender's grounds for appeal.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below's decision that the defendant in charge of actual loan business as the regular director of the credit union shall not make a loan in excess of the lending limit amount to the same person in order to secure the certainty and easy recovery of the loan to the non-indicted Shipping, and in the case of a credit loan, the credit applicant or joint guarantor's credit and property status, in the case of a credit loan, and in the case of a credit loan, where the secured value of a security loan is properly examined and the secured value of a regular loan installment savings is secured, the loan applicant violated the occupational duty to be granted by the approval of the credit committee, and in light of these facts, the defendant's intent to commit the crime of occupational breach of trust as stated in the judgment of the court below is recognized (this does not change even if part of the loan was repaid thereafter), and there is no reason to believe that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of occupational breach of trust or misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, if the crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an insolvent loan, the amount borrowed in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to be recovered shall not be deemed as the amount of damage, and the total amount of the loan likely to be impossible or to incur damage shall be deemed as the amount of damage. If a third party acquires it, the total amount shall be deemed as the property value which the third party has acquired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1247, Apr. 11, 1989; 95Do1043, Jul. 12, 1996). Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the violation of the rules of evidence as discussed.

In addition, the amount of profit under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refers to the aggregate of the amount of profit or the amount of profit if a single single crime is established (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do582, Jun. 13, 1989). The decision of the court below that applied the defendant's act of non-performing loan in this case as a single crime and applied to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) is reasonable. There is no reason to argue

Finally, as in the case of this case, with respect to a judgment on which a sentence of two years and six months has been imposed, the decision cannot be deemed as the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)