beta
Main Issues
Whether the act of using a subsidy granted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City by the vice-chairperson of a social welfare foundation for any purpose other than the purpose of the legal entity constitutes an occupational breach of trust (affirmative)
Summary of Judgment
If the vice-chairperson of a social welfare foundation uses the difference for any purpose other than the purpose of the foundation, such as the date of appointment of an employee who will retire retroactively and delayed the date of his/her retirement in the custody of the said foundation with a subsidy from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 13 of the Social Welfare Services Act, it shall be deemed that it causes damage to the said foundation and that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition, thereby constituting an occupational breach of trust.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 13 of the Social Welfare Services Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney So-young
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No6826 delivered on April 12, 1990
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
If the defendant, as the vice-chairperson of a social welfare foundation (executive director) with the subsidy from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City under Article 13 of the Social Welfare Services Act, used the difference for the purpose other than the purpose of the foundation by the method of retroactive and delayed the retirement date of the employee to retire as stated in the reasoning in the judgment during the custody of the above foundation (it does not mean that the defendant did not claim that the reason for appeal was the reason for appeal) and it should be deemed that the defendant had an intention to acquire unlawful profits.
In the end, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles or violating the rules of evidence as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)