In the event that a representative director of a corporation takes the goods of the company possessed by another person as an act of execution of duty, whether such goods constitute “self-owned goods” in the crime of interference with exercise of rights (affirmative)

In a case where the representative director of a corporation takes the goods of the company in possession of another person as an act of performing his duties based on the status of representative director, the above act is deemed to be an act as a representative agency of the above company, and thus the above company's goods should also be deemed to be "self-owned goods"

Article 323 of the Criminal Act

A

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 88No635 delivered on January 18, 1991

The part of the judgment below on interference with the exercise of rights shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

The prosecutor's appeal concerning an accusation shall be dismissed.

1. As to the point of no appeal

The crime of false accusation is established by reporting false facts to a public office or a public official for the purpose of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition. Therefore, it requires that the reported facts as objective requirements are false, and that the reporting person is false as subjective requirements. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant believed that the reported facts were true at the time of filing the complaint and recognized that it was false, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or non-guilty charges due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, although the defendant submitted a letter of complaint to the head of Gwangju District Public Prosecutor's Office on October 22, 197.

2. As to obstruction of another’s exercise of right

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant was appointed to the representative director of corporation B on April 3, 1987 and has been in office until now, and that the bus of this case was registered as owned by the above company. Thus, even if it is recognized that the defendant took a bus which is the object of the possession or right of non-indicted D or E, it is not an individual owner of the above company, and thus, it is only a thing belonging to the above company and it is not an individual owner of the above Eul or the above E entrusted by the defendant, and even if it becomes the object of possession or right, it is not necessary to go through the judgment as to whether the above D or E's possession is the object of possession or right, and even if it becomes the object of possession or right, it is not necessary to go through the determination as to whether the defendant's notification of the restoration of the right to manage operation due to the automatic termination, the crime of obstruction of right against the defendant cannot be established.

However, if the defendant takes the goods of the above company which possessed the above E, etc. by performing his duties based on the status of representative director of the above company, the defendant's act is deemed to be an act as representative agency of the above company, and therefore, the above company's goods should also be deemed to be "self-owned goods" in the obstruction of the exercise of rights. Thus, the court below's decision to conclude that the above bus does not constitute "self-owned goods" in the obstruction of exercise of rights without doing so, and that the court below's decision to dismiss the prosecutor's appeal, which dismissed the defendant's appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of obstruction of rights, and did not properly examine, and affected the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal on the part of the crime of false accusation is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal on the part of the crime of obstruction of the exercise of right is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)