double transfer of movable property and the nature of breach of trust (negative)

In the event that the Defendant provided the instant fish containers, etc. owned by the Defendant to the victim as a security for transfer and possessed them by the method of the alteration of possession, again, provided them to the third party as a security for transfer, the third party, the next mortgagee, cannot claim exclusive security right against the victim, who is the first secured party, and thus, the first secured party cannot be deemed to have suffered losses, such as loss of security right or decrease in the value of security, etc., merely because the two transferred security is provided as above. Therefore, the crime of breach of trust is not established.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 89No831 delivered on July 21, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

The court below held that the court below's decision of innocence is justified on the ground that the defendant's act of double transfer security cannot be deemed as having caused damage to the first mortgagee, such as loss of the security right or reduction of the value of the security, on the ground that the defendant's act of securing double transfer security cannot be deemed as having caused damage to the first mortgagee, and that the judgment of innocence is not proper, and there is no error of law, such as the theory of lawsuit, since the court below's decision of innocence is not proper, since the defendant's act of securing double transfer security cannot be deemed as having been made because the first mortgagee's act of loss of the security right or decrease in the value of the security, etc. is not proper.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)