beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the part not guilty) is reversed, and this part of the case is in Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the part of occupational breach of trust
A. The summary of the charge of occupational breach of trust of the Defendant: (a) from January 2006, the Defendant: (b) was an employee of the Victim Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”); and (c) around October 17, 2006, a notary public borrowed KRW 450 million from DM for personal purposes, regardless of the business affairs of the victimized Co., Ltd. at the HB office, even though the notary public borrowed KRW 450 million from DM, the issuer was the victimized Co., Ltd., and (d) completed a promissory note of KRW 450 million for the face value of KRW 450 million for the victimized Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Promissory note of this case”), affixed the seal impression of the victimized Co., Ltd. to HC’s agent; and (b) caused property damage equivalent to the same amount as the victimized Co., Ltd.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant crime of occupational breach of trust on the following grounds.
(1) If the representative director of a company issues a promissory note in the name of the company by abusing his/her power of representation, the risk of causing damage to the company’s property in the course of breach of trust has already occurred in the event that a promissory note is distributed to a third party, even though the other party knew of the abuse or was gross negligence and the company did not bear obligations against the other party. Thus, barring special circumstances where the promissory note is not distributed to a third party, the risk of causing damage to the company’s property in the course of
I would like to say.
(2) However, in this case, the Defendant agreed that the Promissory Notes do not distribute the Promissory Notes for the school between the other party at the time of issuing them.
There is no evidence to see, and 2.