If the transferor receives a claim after transferring the claim by means of debt repayment and completing the requisite to set up against him, whether the crime of breach of trust is established (negative)

If the defendant transferred 2 million won to the non-indicted Party A as a repayment of obligation to the victim, and met the requirements for setting up against him, even if the defendant and the non-indicted Party A agreed to reduce the above security deposit and received the balance security deposit, the above assignment of obligation is still effective, and since the above claim of the victim does not cease to exist accordingly, the defendant cannot be in the position of a person in charge of the business of the victim. In this case, the defendant does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 83No1515 delivered on December 22, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a lease agreement with the non-indicted 1,00,000 won which allows the non-indicted 1 to move into the above three million won deposit to the non-indicted 1,000 won of the tenement house in the judgment that the defendant actually owns the defendant's debt of 2 million won for the victim lele line or by securing a claim. The court below affirmed the fact that the defendant received one million won of the deposit money for the non-indicted 1,000,000 won and agreed to the above three parties to pay the above lele line directly to the victim lele line. Accordingly, the court below concluded that the above lease agreement was amended between the defendant and the non-indicted 1,00,000 won of the deposit money for the non-indicted 1,000 won as the nominal owner on the register of the above house and then reduced the deposit money to two million won.

Therefore, when the above three-party agreement was reached, the defendant transferred the security deposit claim of 2 million won to the victim as the repayment of the obligation to the victim, and met the requirements for setting up against the victim, so the defendant does not remain any more business for the victim, so even if the defendant reduced the security deposit between the defendant and the above main agent, the above assignment of obligation is still effective within the extent. Therefore, even if the defendant received one million won in the balance of the security deposit from the main agent, even if the defendant received the security deposit from the main agent, the obligation to take over the main agent for the victim is not extinguished, so the defendant is not a person in charge of the business of the victim who is the creditor, and the risk of damage to the victim is not a person in charge of the business of the victim, and therefore the defendant cannot be established with the premise that the defendant is a person in charge of the business of the victim. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below to this purport is justified and it cannot be adopted to criticize the judgment of the court below on the basis

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)