The case holding that the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established where the vice president of a university receives a request from the president of a medical college on preferential recommendation to acquire the right to operate the ancillary facilities of the medical hospital;

If the president and the vice president who has the authority to select the lessee of the ancillary facilities of a medical school affiliated with a university and the head of an affiliated hospital, or the vice president having the authority to assist or act on behalf of the head of the affiliated hospital, or to recommend a lessee, have received KRW 30,000,000 in the name of such case for the preferential recommendation to acquire the right to operate the ancillary facilities of the relevant affiliated hospital, he/she shall be deemed to have received money from a person who administers another’s business in violation of the social rules or the principles of good faith in relation to his/her duties and

Article 357 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Do495 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 301) 90Do665 delivered on August 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1980)

A and one other

Defendants

Attorney B and one other

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No2957,90No4560 decided September 3, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

In regard to Defendant C, 30 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. We examine Defendant A’s counsel’s grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the criminal facts of this case against the defendant can be acknowledged. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below.

The defendant served as the head of the D University Planning and Coordination Office, the President acting as the deputy head, and the deputy head of the D University E branch of D University, was authorized to assist or act for the president of the D University and the head of the affiliated hospital, or to recommend lessees. The position of the defendant F of the lower court, who recommended him to give priority to acquiring the right to operate the ancillary facilities of the affiliated hospital. If the defendant received KRW 30 million from the defendant F of the lower court, on two occasions, in response to the solicitation that he/she would give priority to soliciting him/her to take over the right to operate the ancillary facilities of the affiliated hospital, he/she received the total amount of KRW 30 million on two occasions, in violation of the social rules or the principle of good faith, which constitutes a crime of taking property in breach of trust. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles of taking property in breach of trust

The assertion is nothing more than an error of the judgment of the court below on the premise that the facts, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, are recognized and the preparation of evidence, are based on different opinions.

The judgment of a party member is not appropriate in this case. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine Defendant C’s grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the criminal facts of this case against the defendant can be recognized. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance in order to impose one punishment on the grounds that the two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, while combining two cases in which the defendant was not yet finalized, and determined as stated in its reasoning, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of law of omission of judgment affecting the judgment on the grounds of appeal because the court did not make a daily judgment

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)