Whether a person who transfers the status of a restaurant lessee is a person who administers another's business, which is the subject of the crime of breach of trust (negative)

Even though a person who has transferred the status of a lessee under a restaurant rental agreement has a duty not to lose the status of a lessee who is notified to the lessor, such duty is a duty of the transferor as a duty of lease transferor and cannot be deemed to have dealt with a part of the business for acquiring the right of the transferee at the same time as his/her own business, and therefore, the transferor cannot be deemed as a person who administers another person's business.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Sep. 25, 1990) (Law No. 1990, Feb. 223, 198)

A

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No120 delivered on June 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Since the subject of breach of trust is a person in charge of another's business, if the nature of the business is not that of another person's business but that of another person's business, it cannot be deemed a person in charge of another person's business even if it is managed for that person's own business. Thus, as stated in the facts charged of this case, if the defendant transferred the status of lessee under a restaurant rental agreement with non-indicted B to the victim C, and thereby notify this fact to the lessor B and does not lose the status of lessee as the above C, such duty cannot be deemed to be a person in charge of the defendant's own business as the obligation of the lease transferor, and not a person in charge of the business for the acquisition of the right of the transferee.

In the same purport, the court below's decision not to regard the defendant as the person who administers another's business, which is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, is just and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, and precedents based on theory of lawsuit cannot be an appropriate precedent as different cases. There is no reason to discuss

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)