logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.03.12 2012도9148
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

A. The so-called so-called financing or LBO (the abbreviation of Leverd Buy-Out) is not a single legal concept, but generally, a method of offering the assets of the acquired company as security or covering a considerable portion of the funds for corporate acquisition with the borrowed funds borrowed by the acquired company to repay the assets of the acquired company, and its specific form in the transaction reality is very diverse.

Unless there is a law regulating these loans, the crime of breach of trust is established for the related persons who have led the acquisition of the company by the method of the loan purchase in a uniform manner.

It cannot be readily concluded that the crime of breach of trust is not established or not, and whether the act in the process of borrowing and buying constitutes a constituent element of the crime of breach of trust should be determined individually.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do6634, Apr. 15, 2010; 2010Do1544, Dec. 22, 2011). Moreover, in determining whether a corporate manager had an intent to commit a breach of trust in relation to a management judgment, the same legal doctrine as the method of proving an intent in general occupational breach of trust is applied to the crime of occupational breach of trust, as well as the same legal doctrine as in general occupational breach of trust. However, in the corporate management, with inherent risk inherent in the foundation of risk, the manager made a careful decision with the belief that it conforms to the interests of the company on the basis of the collected information without the intent of the manager to take any personal benefit.

Even if it is predicted, there are cases where the company suffers losses, and even in such cases, it is intended to impose criminal liability for occupational breach of trust by relaxing the interpretation standard of intention.

arrow