(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노1413 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노1413

업무상배임

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though it can be recognized that the defendant's awareness of a violation of the duties in the course of occupational breach of trust can be recognized in relation to each crime in the judgment of the court below. However, the judgment below which convicted the defendant on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, in order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust, the perception of breach of duty as a subjective element and its consequence requires the perception that the principal or a third party would obtain profit and inflict loss on the principal, i.e., the intent of breach of trust. Such recognition is sufficient with dolusence. However, in a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent of breach of trust, the fact constituting a subjective element of the crime of breach of trust due to the nature of the object ought to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts that have

In addition, when property damage is inflicted on one's property in breach of trust, it includes not only a real damage but also a case where the risk of actual damage to property has been caused, and the existence or absence of property damage should be understood from an economic point of view without legal judgment in relation to the property condition of the principal. As long as the risk of damage has been caused, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if the security has been acquired or the damage has been restored later (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do78, Mar. 26, 2004). 2) In full view of the facts of recognition and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, the following facts are recognized.

A) At the time, the Defendant is the head of the exhibition project team of the instant foundation.

참조판례

-대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2003도7878 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.05.17 2018노102

-대구지방법원 2017.04.28 2016노2930

-대전지방법원 2018.10.11 2018노274

-서울고등법원 2016.04.08 2015노2783

-춘천지방법원 2018.12.14 2018노49