[1] The meaning of "a person who administers another's business" who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, and whether it constitutes a case where a business administrator terminatess legal authority or handles another's business before transfer of business after being dismissed from such authority (affirmative

[2] The meaning of "an act in violation of the duty" and "an act in violation of the duty" and "an act in violation of the duty"

[3] The case holding that the crime of occupational breach of trust is established in a case where the chairman of the Housing Association Settlement Commission dismissed and the chairman of the Labor Association Settlement Commission refused to hand over his duties while being served with a copy of the complaint and a writ of summons of date for pleading of the lawsuit filed against the Settlement Commission, but did not go to the Settlement Commission and did not go to the Settlement Commission for itself, thereby receiving a final judgment against

[1] The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party acquire it through an act in violation of his/her duty and thereby inflict loss on the principal. The person who administers another's business as the subject of the crime of breach of trust refers to a person who is acknowledged to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith in internal relations with the other person, and it does not necessarily require that the person has a fiduciary relationship to carry out the business in an external relationship with the third party, and its business is not required to be comprehensively entrusted, and the ground for the conduct of business, i.e., the ground for the fiduciary relationship, may arise through the provisions of the law, legal act, custom, or business management, so it constitutes a case where the business administrator administers the business after the extinction

[2] In the case of breach of trust, an act in violation of one's duty includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship between the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected to not perform or expect not to perform as a matter of course under the provisions of the law, the content of the contract, or the good faith principle, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business dealing with, and thereby, an act in violation of one's duty. The time of causing property damage includes not only a case where a real loss is inflicted, but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has occurred. The existence of property damage is not based on legal judgment in relation to the state of the principal's property, but also from an economic point of view. Therefore, even if the act in breach of trust is null and void by legal judgment, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust when the act in breach of trust causes property damage or causes

[3] The case holding that the crime of occupational breach of trust is established in case where the chairman of the Housing Association Settlement Commission dismissed and the chairman of the Labor Association Settlement Commission refused to hand over his duties while being served with a copy of the complaint and a writ of summons of date for pleading of the lawsuit filed against the Settlement Commission, but did not go to the Settlement Commission and did not voluntarily file the lawsuit and did not go to the Settlement Commission, thereby receiving the

[1] Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Code / [3] Articles 355 (2) and 356 of the Criminal Code

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Do902 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2678) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 89Do1524 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1294) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do2963 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2062), Supreme Court Decision 94Do3013 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 620), Supreme Court Decision 95Do531 delivered on May 30, 197 (Gong197Ha, 1952), Supreme Court Decision 9Do3998 delivered on September 199, 198 (Gong94979Sang, 1989)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon

Gwangju District Court Decision 97No1075, 98No1662 delivered on February 19, 199

The appeal shall be dismissed. 94 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the defendant's business activity period

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain it through an act in violation of his/her duty, and thereby causes damage to the principal. The person who administers another's business as the subject of the crime of breach of trust refers to a person who is acknowledged to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith in the internal relationship with the other person, and it does not necessarily require that the person has a fiduciary relationship to perform the business in an external relationship with the third party, and it does not require that his/her business be comprehensively entrusted, and the ground for the conduct of business, i.e., the ground for a fiduciary relationship, may arise through the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, legal act, custom, or business management. Thus, even if he/she processes the business after the extinction

In addition, an act in violation of one's duty includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is expected to be naturally expected under the provisions of law, the content of the contract, or the good faith principle, or by doing an act that is expected not to naturally be done, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the duty to handle. The time of causing property damage includes not only a case where a real loss is inflicted, but also a case where a risk of actual property damage has been inflicted. The determination of whether a property damage has been inflicted should be based on legal judgment in relation to the state of property of the principal, not on legal judgment. Therefore, even if the act in breach of trust is null and void by legal judgment, it constitutes a breach of trust when the act in breach of trust causes property damage or a risk of actual property damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do3013, Dec. 22, 195).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant was active as the chairman of the Settlement Committee of the Non-Party Housing Association, a non-corporate company, and was dismissed by the non-Confidence resolution of the general meeting, and the chairman of the Settlement Committee was elected, without handing over the business affairs and official seal to his successor. However, the court below filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Jung-gu Settlement Committee, and the non-indicted Bae's non-indicted Bae filed a lawsuit for the registration of transfer of land ownership at his own seat, and the defendant was served with a copy and a writ of summons of the complaint at his own seat. Since it is doubtful whether the above non-indicted Bae's claims were proper, the defendant notified the Settlement Committee of the above facts, and decided whether to comply with the resolution of the Settlement Committee, or not, he did not respond to the above facts, but did not respond to the resolution of the Settlement Committee, and thus, the defendant did not have the right to request the Review Committee's dismissal of the defendant's property before the settlement of the above facts.

2. As to the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of occupational breach of trust

In light of the records, since all of the facts charged in this case are recognized and the criminal intent of the defendant for the crime of occupational breach of trust can be recognized, all of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the criminal intent of occupational breach of trust. The arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)