Whether a crime of occupational breach of trust is established in relation to the act of the president of a credit union that exceeds the limit amount of loans or loans to non-members according to the prior examination and resolution of the Credit Union Credit Union Committee composed of partnership officers

Since the president of a credit union has a duty to faithfully perform his/her duties for the union, if the union extended a loan in excess of the prescribed amount of loan limit or extended a loan to non-members in violation of its duties and thereby causes property damage equivalent to the amount of the loan to the union, the company's occupational breach of trust is established regardless of whether there was a resolution of the credit committee in the union or it is possible to recover the loan.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 83No557 delivered on April 18, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the provisions of Article 29 subparag. 2, Article 31 subparag. 1(5) of the Credit Unions Act, and Article 35 subparag. 10, and Article 46 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Chuncheon Credit Union which is bound in the records, and Article 6 of the Regulations on the Conduct of Credit Business for Credit Collection and Receipt of Funds may borrow money as its business. Since funds necessary to meet the demand of funds can be borrowed from a federation, partnership, or outside within the scope of the resolution of the board of directors, the resolution of the board of directors within the scope of the resolution of the general meeting, the court below held that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a lawsuit of breach of trust since the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a lawsuit of breach of trust, since the defendant borrowed funds as stated in its decision from the board of directors from May 1, 1980 to August 31, 192.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

First, as to occupational breach of trust:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence of this time, that the defendant, as the president of the non-indicted 1 Credit Cooperatives, in handling the loan and receiving business of the union, the loan limit to one union member cannot exceed 10/100 of the total amount of investment and the total amount of the reserve funds, and that the loan limit is five million won or more for the purpose of promoting profits such as the entire hospital and the correction salary, and that the loan limit to non-unions cannot be made, but the above union's property damage equivalent to the loan amount cannot be made by making a short-term loan or lending to non-unions in excess of the loan limit as stated in its reasoning, and then the judgment of the court below is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence in the lawsuit, and even if the defendant dealt with the above loan by prior resolution of the New Cooperative's board of directors, regardless of the opinion of the above union's opinion that the above union's loan was made by the above union's union's member's loan and did not unfairly.

Second, as to the crime of breach of trust:

Examining the evidence cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the acceptance of a breach of trust in the judgment against the defendant is justified, and it cannot be said that there is an error of mistake of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)