logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.02.27 2013도15706
배임수재
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the determination of the selection and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Meanwhile, the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business obtains property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his/her duties, and does not require that a person who commits an act in violation of any of the duties

Here, “illegal solicitation” is not necessarily necessary to the extent that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and is sufficient if it goes against social rules or the principle of trust and good faith. In determining it, the contents of solicitation and the amount of consideration related thereto, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected by the law, should be comprehensively considered, and there is no need to explicitly make solicitation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7380, Sept. 9, 2010). Even if a person acquired property or property gains after receiving an illegal solicitation, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established as long as such property or property gains are the consideration for such solicitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1174, Nov. 14, 2013). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking into account the adopted evidence, and subsequently rejected the Defendant’s offer on the ground that he had already extracted the players from the E University with respect to H, which is a F High School player, at the E University, on the ground that he/she would select H at the time of the M&D on June 2009.

arrow