In the event that a transferor after the strike fails to pay the fraternity, whether the crime of breach of trust is committed (negative)

Since there is a occupational duty to pay the fraternity collected from the fraternity members to the fraternity members, if they are consumed at will without paying it to the designated fraternity members in violation of such duty, the crime of occupational breach of trust shall be established. However, since there is no room for recognizing the obligation to pay the fraternity funds under the premise that there is a settlement obligation after the fraternity is in contravention of such duty, the obligation to pay the fraternity funds is to be established, and as such, there is no room for recognizing the obligation to pay the fraternity funds under the premise that the fraternity funds continue to exist after the strike between the fraternity members and the fraternity members, the collection of the fraternity funds as if the fraternity funds continue to exist after the strike shall not be deemed to be a duty to pay the fraternity funds to the fraternity members, regardless of the establishment of a crime of fraud.

Article 355 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do1454 Delivered on June 28, 1977

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No1925 delivered on June 8, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Since the fraternity has a duty to pay the fraternity collected from the fraternity members to the fraternity members, if the fraternity arbitrarily consumes the fraternity members without paying them to the designated fraternity members in violation of that duty, the crime of occupational breach of trust shall be established (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do1454, Jun. 28, 197). However, in the event of the fraternity's strike, there is no room for recognizing the duty to pay the fraternity dues under the premise of the existence of the fraternity.

Even based on the facts charged in this case or the facts admitted by the court below, since the limits of organization and operation of the defendant as a leader had already been dispatched on August 14, 1981, it is clear that the defendant collected the fraternity in September 14, 1981, by pretending that the defendant existed from some members of the fraternity, it cannot be said that the above collected money is an occupational duty to pay it to the Lee Jong-nam, which is not a settlement money for the fraternity but a deposit under the premise of the existence of the fraternity, regardless of the establishment of fraud in relation to these members.

Therefore, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in breach of trust by failing to impose KRW 1,500,000 out of KRW 6,400,000, which will be delivered to the Lee Jong-nam, in violation of his duties as the leader of September 14, 1981, is not justified even though the reasons for the decision are different.

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)