logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노2573
업무상배임
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds of appeal (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. From the judgment of the court below, the crime of occupational breach of trust on the part of defendant A is established when a person in a position to handle another person's business violates his/her duty, thereby acquiring pecuniary advantage or having a third party acquire it, thereby causing loss to the principal. Thus, in light of the status to administer another person's business, it is an offense established by his/her status relationship, and considering that it is a position to administer another person's business, it is an aggravated provision for simple breach of trust, which is a case

Therefore, if a person without such status has committed an occupational breach of trust in collusion with such person having such status, the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act shall be imposed on a person who has no such status (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do883, Apr. 27, 199). In such a case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is evident that the defendant A is not a person engaged in the business of the victim company, but the court below applied only Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act to the defendant A within the scope of the term of punishment chosen to punish the criminal defendant under Article 356 of the Criminal Act. This is a violation of law that leads to the application of the law.

B. As to the reasons for appeal by the Defendants B and C, the Defendants recognized the instant crime and divided their errors, and the Defendants deposited the sum of KRW 30 million for the victim company in the lower court together with A, and further paid KRW 20 million to the representative of the victim company, and agreed with the victim company.

arrow