A. The nature of the map;

(b) An act of caution not paying a fraternity to a member who fails to pay the fraternity and an act of breach of trust;

A. The fraternity is established and maintained on the basis of the contractual relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity, and it is mutually exchanged between the fraternity and the fraternity, and if either of them violates the basic agreement, it is impossible to compel the fraternity to perform its obligations. Since the fraternity's obligation to pay the fraternity is the most basic factor in the content of the agreement, it is not possible for the fraternity to require the supervisor to pay the fraternity unless it performs this obligation.

B. In a case where a fraternity did not pay the fraternity in good faith, thereby cancelling the basic agreement, the proprietor does not have a duty to give the fraternity to that person, but as a matter of settlement among them, it is only the matter of settlement. As such, it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust as long as the transferor did not pay the fraternity to that fraternity, it does not constitute an act in violation of its duty.

A. Article 703 of the Civil Act: Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No6690 delivered on October 11, 1986

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Defendant’s ground of appeal

In full view of the evidence in the first instance trial, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant, while operating the successful bidder system organized on March 11, 1982, collected the fraternity from the members of the fraternity and immediately paid the fraternity to the members designated as the recipient of the fraternity of the meeting, in violation of his duty, received KRW 3,720,000 from the members of the fraternity around June 11, 1984, and received KRW 3,720,000 from the members of the fraternity around July 11, 1984, while receiving KRW 29,720,000 from the members of the fraternity, and determined that the Defendant’s act constituted a crime of breach of trust.

The guidance is established and maintained on the basis of the contractual relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity, and the rights and obligations of the fraternity and the fraternity are mutually exchanged, and either party violates the basic agreement, it is impossible to compel the other party to perform his/her obligations. The obligation to pay the guidance is the most basic element in the terms of the contract, and the guidance is not required to pay the guidance, unless the obligation is fulfilled.

In full view of the various evidence revealed in the record, the victim sent out to the victim shall be awarded three times, five times, and 11 early, and the defendant shall be awarded a successful bid again for 24 times, and the defendant shall be awarded a successful bid again, but he was unable to award a successful tender against other members, and on this ground, the defendant did not pay a successful tender for 24 times, 25 times, and 26 times on the premise that he did not receive a successful tender for 24 times, and on the premise that he did not pay a successful tender for 24 times, it can be recognized that the defendant did not pay a successful tender. As such, once the dispatch of the cause of the succession did not faithfully pay the advance, the defendant is not obliged to pay the advance to him, and there is no settlement problem between them. Accordingly, the defendant's act of paying the advance does not constitute a crime of breach of trust as long as it did not violate his duty.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of breach of trust and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are with merit.

Therefore, 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 Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)