Cases of having the intention of committing a crime of occupational breach of trust

In concluding the so-called D.A. import agency contract, which guarantees the payment of the import scrap metal for the Company A, if the Defendants did not obtain a resolution of the board of directors and the approval of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy to prevent damages and losses caused by the said payment guarantee, it shall be deemed that the Defendants constitute a violation of occupational duties, and if the damages were caused by such violation, they constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No2364 delivered on December 31, 1968, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No2364 delivered on December 31, 1968

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning that the judgment of the court of first instance maintained the fact that there was no proof of crime, the defendant et al. was the chief of the above contract and the chief of the division in charge of the trade relations of the non-indicted 1 corporation at the time of the above act, and concluded an import agency contract on the revenue of the non-indicted 1 corporation over three occasions without the approval of the board of directors and the chief of the division, and the fact that the non-indicted 2 et al. who was the guaranteed company was actually dissolved due to the impossibility and usefulness of collection of the sales proceeds of the imported non-indicted 1 corporation and the above sales proceeds of the non-indicted 6 corporation's 128,517,19 won's guaranteed obligation to the non-indicted 6 corporation without the approval of the court below's conclusion that the non-indicted 1 corporation's above sales contract was not concluded on behalf of the non-indicted 1 corporation, but the defendant et al. did not know that the above contract was concluded on behalf of the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2's profits.

However, the defendant is the chief of the department and the chief of the division in charge of the trade relations of the non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter the non-indicted 1 corporation) and the non-indicted 1 corporation's act of importing the scrap metal from the non-indicted 2 corporation to the non-indicted 2 corporation (hereinafter the "non-indicted 2 corporation") on behalf of him on behalf of him, and the conclusion of the so-called D.A import agency contract that the non-indicted 1 corporation guarantees the payment of the above import metal for the non-indicted 2 shall first obtain approval from the board of directors of the non-indicted 1 corporation and the chief of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. In addition, if the non-indicted 2 company fails to pay the revenue amount of the above import of the scrap metal to the "non-indicted 1 corporation" due to the impossibility or useful use of the above import metal sales proceeds, it is reasonable to conclude that the non-indicted 1 corporation's duty of disclosure to the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 1 corporation's non-indicted 2 corporation's duty of breach of trust for the same reason.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)