beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. In the crime of occupational breach of trust due to the lease of a parking lot, the term "if the damage was inflicted on the principal" means the case where the damage was inflicted on the principal's property status in general, and includes the case where the damage was inflicted on the principal due to the risk of actual property loss. Therefore, even if the damage was not clearly calculated, the establishment of the crime of occupational breach
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2914, Jan. 19, 2001; 2007Do6772, Oct. 29, 2009). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, the representative director of the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim E”), as to the H parking lot and J parking lot managed by the Victim E (hereinafter referred to as “victim E”), determines the amount of KRW 2,00,000,000, which is less than the total monthly profit earned by the said parking lot at the time; and (b) concluded a lease agreement by setting a rental period of five years for a longer term than ordinary profit; and (c) acquired the amount of unregistered
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is just.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is an error of violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules regarding the fact-finding of reasonable rents.
There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on property damage in the crime of occupational breach of trust or on the rules of reinforcement of confessions, etc.
On the other hand, H parking lot is owned by its owner, and the defendant leased H parking lot at low price.
Even if the victim cannot be said to be OE, the defendant's ground of appeal is not asserted as the ground of appeal.