A. Whether it is necessary to practically take charge of the duties related to coverage at the time of acquisition of the crime of taking property in breach of trust

B. The meaning of "illegal solicitation" in the crime of taking property in breach of trust

A. The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Code is protected by the law as the law of integrity of a person who administers another's business. Thus, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established by receiving illegal solicitation in relation to one's business, and it does not necessarily require the requirement that the person who administers another's business actually takes charge of the duty related to coverage at the time of coverage, and so long as the person who administers another's business receives illegal solicitation in relation to one's duty, even if he did not take charge of the duty after the change of division of business, he still takes a position to handle another's business, and if the number of property

B. In the crime of taking property in breach of trust, illegal solicitation is not limited to the degree of occupational breach of trust, but is sufficient if it is a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith.

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Do2130 Decided February 9, 1982, 84Do179 Decided July 10, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 84Do1906 Decided November 27, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee

Busan District Court Decision 86No1933 delivered on December 12, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal.

1. The legal interest of the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Code is the integrity of a person who administers another's business. Thus, the crime of taking property in breach of trust shall be established by receiving and receiving property in exchange for an unlawful solicitation as to its business, and it does not necessarily require the requirement that the person who administers another's business actually takes charge of the duty related to coverage even at the time of coverage. Thus, in a case where a person who administers another's business receives an unlawful solicitation as to his/her duties, even if he/she did not take charge of the duty, he/she still takes a position to handle another's business, and if the number of property

In addition, illegal solicitation in this crime is not limited to the degree of occupational breach of trust, but also against social rules or the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1906, Nov. 27, 1984; 84Do179, Jul. 10, 1984).

2. Examining the evidence duly established by the court below in light of the records, the defendant, in collaboration with the co-defendant 1, 2, etc. of the court below, was employed as the village head of the same residential area, and the defendant formed a housing association with 160 residents of three villages who are scheduled to be submerged due to the construction of a dam, and performed all the affairs to move to the residents of three villages, and if the housing association was formed, the defendant and co-defendant 1, 2, etc. of the court below were in the position of being appointed as the head of the association or the officers (the defendant is the head of the association at present). At the time of the crime of this case, the defendant and co-defendant 1, 2, etc. of the court below were in the position of managing the above affairs, such as the selection of the housing site to be moved to by the above sub-party residents, the composition of the housing association, and the consultation on relocation measures, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts of the crime of violation of trust by misunderstanding of evidence.

The issue is groundless.

3. The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)