Article 622 of the Commercial Code, the scope of the employee who is the subject of the special breach of trust

The employees of the company who are the subject of special breach of trust under Article 622(1) of the Commercial Act are at least the persons who have comprehensive power of attorney, although they can act externally on certain kinds of business or specific matters of the company, so the delegated company's business is not subject to individual specific matters.

Article 622 of the Commercial Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 76No822 delivered on April 26, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

Before determining the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the court below, ex officio, examined the following facts: (a) the Defendant was the director of the accounting division of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd., who made various spons using Mariprophal and Mariethylene, using it; (b) the Defendant, who was the head of the accounting division of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd., who made various spons by making the Defendant’s development and recommended the commercialization of them to the said company; (c) agreed with the president of the said company to make an application for utility model registration of the grain sponsing with the “spacking spacks” and the “spacks” attached to the above company’s name; and (d) attempted to make the said application under the name of the said company, not the company’s name, by applying Articles 642 and 622(1) of the Commercial Act to attempted acts, but applied Articles 64

However, under Article 622(1) of the Commercial Act, the principal agent of the special breach of trust is limited to promoters, managing partners, directors, auditors, or acting directors under Article 386(2), 407(1), 415 or 567(1) of the Commercial Act, managers, or other employees entrusted with any of the kinds of or specific matters concerning the business of the company, and such employees constitute the special breach of trust as stated in the former part of Article 622(1) of the Commercial Act. The phrase “other employees entrusted with any of the kinds of or specific matters concerning the business of the company” refers to employees who have been entrusted with any of such specific matters, such as promoters, managing partners, directors, auditors, directors, acting directors, managers, etc., and those who are in the position of comprehensive power of attorney concerning the business of the company, and it is reasonable to view that the above special breach of trust is separately defined in the Commercial Act in addition to the crime of general breach of trust and occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act, but at least it does not constitute an individual employee who is entrusted with any specific matters concerning the company.

In this case, it can be known that the defendant is not a promoter, managing member, director, auditor, acting director, or manager of the above company. Accordingly, in consideration of whether the defendant is a "employee delegated with any kind of or specific matters concerning the company's business," which is the subject of special breach of trust under the above provision of the above law, the defendant is in the position of comprehensive power of attorney over the company. However, the defendant's breach of trust of this case is not a matter delegated comprehensively to the defendant as the director of the accounting department, that is, the matters related to the defendant's business related to the previous device, which is not a matter related to the accounting affairs, but a matter related to the duty of special breach of trust under Article 622 (1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, to be the subject of the crime of special breach of trust under Article 622 (1) of the above law, the defendant is in the position of authority to represent the above company's business affairs and affairs related thereto. The defendant's accounting division of the above company cannot be seen as a general position of the defendant's company's authority.

Therefore, even though the original decision alone cannot be the subject of the crime of special breach of trust in this case, the original decision which found the defendant guilty is erroneous and applied the legal principles as to the subject of the crime of special breach of trust in Article 622(1) of the Commercial Act, or committed an unlawful act of lack of reason. Since it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, the original decision which does not have to be decided on the grounds of appeal by the defendant cannot be

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges who have participated in the trial and judgment.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)