A. Requirements for establishing "a crime of taking property in breach of trust" under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act

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 Act is to protect the integrity of a person who administers another’s business, and there is no need for a person who administers another’s business to acquire property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and to practically perform certain acts in response to solicitation.

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

Supreme Court Decision 87No414 Decided April 28, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park In-bok

Daegu District Court Decision 87No121 delivered on June 12, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel:

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is to protect the integrity of a person who administers another's business. It is not necessary that a person who administers another's business acquires property or financial benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and does not actually commit a certain act in response to solicitation. Here, illegal solicitation is not sufficient if it does not constitute occupational breach of trust, but is a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do414, Apr. 28, 1987).

Examining the evidence presented in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant is in a position to handle all business affairs for the above hospital, such as designing and concluding a contract for the relocation new construction project according to the above hospital relocation plan while working as the chief director of the hospital. The defendant is not in violation of the rules of evidence, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and is given KRW 30,150,000 per share in compensation for the joint-defendant who is the representative director of the non-indicted corporation incorporated into the construction business company and received KRW 30,150,000 for the total amount of money per share and KRW 10,000,000 for the above hospital relocation project. The defendant cannot be seen as being given notice of the fact that he received 10,000,000 won for the above hospital relocation project, and there is no reason to believe that the defendant's act of receiving or executing the above new construction project or the construction project, which is one of the most inappropriate reasons for the contract's own new construction project or construction project execution committee.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)