The case holding that it is merely a request made to the effect that a person who had a division manager of the taxi mutual aid association should be paid a large amount of compensation on the part of the victim of the traffic accident, and it cannot be deemed that he/she conspireds to commit occupational breach of trust.

The case holding that it is merely a request made to the effect that a person who had a division manager of the taxi mutual aid association should be paid a large amount of compensation on the part of the victim of the traffic accident, and it cannot be deemed that he/she conspireds to commit occupational breach of trust.

Articles 356 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 88No2850 delivered on April 14, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to occupational breach of trust:

Examining the record, the first instance court: (a) caused a traffic accident upon Nonindicted 1’s request by the Defendant, who was the child of the Defendant, to have been aboard the victim’s assistance; (b) in conflict with the taxi for business use operated by Nonindicted 1, who was driven by Nonindicted 3, and died; (c) according to the criteria for recognition of the percentage of the vehicle accident, the percentage of Nonindicted 1’s negligence on the traffic accident occurred under the road conditions such as this case, is recognized to be 60%, and only 4,340,835 won should be paid for the sum of the compensation, which is 4,340,835 won. In compensating for this accident, the Defendant, who was the head of the division of the first instance court, did not have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the compensation of the above victim’s bereaved family members and the agreement on the above Kim Jong-woo, did not have any further influence on the Defendant’s act of causing the above victim’s occupational breach of trust by changing the situation of the above traffic accident scene to the main road.

In addition, the court below determined that the defendant committed the crime of occupational breach of trust in collusion with the defendant at the court of first instance, taking into account the following facts: the evidence cited by the court of first instance, in particular, the defendant at the court of first instance stated that "it may reduce the rate of negligence of the non-indicted 1 if he manipulates the contents of the accident to the non-indicted 1, a large amount of compensation from the victim of the accident immediately after the non-indicted 1 caused the traffic accident to be paid by the defendant, and at the time of the defendant's request that the above victim pay a large amount of compensation to the victim of the accident. However, the court below determined that the defendant committed the crime of occupational breach of trust in collusion with the defendant at the court of first instance, although the traffic accident in this case was caused by the non-indicted 1's negligence by the non-indicted 1, a narrow road, but it could reduce the rate of negligence of the non-indicted 1, a large amount of compensation to the above victim."

However, even though the so-called "the defendant paid gold 7,00,000 won as above to the defendant in the first instance trial is considered to constitute occupational breach of trust, the defendant requested the defendant to pay a large amount of compensation to the bereaved family members of the victim in the first instance trial under the facts stated in the above decision, so it cannot be said that the defendant conspireds to commit occupational breach of trust of the defendant in the first instance trial.

Furthermore, when examining the statement of the defendant in the first instance trial (1 and 2 times) and the suspect examination protocol of the defendant in the first instance trial, the defendant in the first instance trial stated that the prosecutor's office could not pay only 4,340,835 won due to Non-indicted 1's negligence to the defendant, and that the defendant could not be said to have been at fault, and that the defendant requested to do so. The defendant in the first instance trial and the defendant in the first instance trial stated that he could not do so if he changed 90 to 88,00 won, he stated that the victim's bereaved family may be 7,00,000 won if he changed to 90,000 won, and that the defendant in the first instance trial did not request the defendant to make a statement in consideration of the fact that the defendant was at the request of the defendant in his own jurisdiction (the defendant in the second instance trial as the defendant in the second instance and the defendant's father did not make a statement to the defendant in the first instance trial and the defendant's statement.

In addition, according to the records, the payment of the compensation of this case is independently processed by the related documents prepared by the association itself (in the investigation records, 43 pages) and the evidence cited by the first instance court, it cannot be seen that the defendant played any role in the payment of compensation or the preparation of documents required by the association, or setting the rate of road situation and negligence, even though examining the records, it does not seem that the court below deliberated on this point.

In this case, as seen above, the defendant cannot be deemed to have shared part of the act of occupational breach of trust committed by the defendant in the first instance court, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant has conspireded with the defendant in the first instance court to gather the act of occupational breach of trust with the defendant in the first instance court or to realize the intention of joint crimes, by allowing the defendant to pay a large amount of compensation to the defendant in the injured party of the first instance court.

Therefore, the court below's finding that the defendant committed an occupational breach of trust in collusion with the defendant in the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's judgment is incomplete, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of joint principal offender in the crime of occupational breach of trust, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)