(a) The amount of crime of breach of trust established where a bank personnel participated in an illegal loan;

B. The nature of the co-principal and the distinction between the two;

A. Since the crime of breach of trust is a dangerous crime that does not require the determination of actual loss of property, is likely to make it impossible to exercise the right to property or when there is the risk of loss, if the Bank is involved in an illegal loan in violation of its duty, the crime of breach of trust is established against the total amount of the loan. If a third party has acquired it, the total amount of the loan is the value of the property profit acquired by the third party under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and whether

B. The nature of the co-principal is in the functional control by division of work, so the co-principal is in the functional control by the co-principal, while the co-principal is in the functional control by the co-principal, the two are distinguished in that there is no control of the act.

A. Article 356 of the Criminal Act. Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 88No938 delivered on June 10, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are examined together.

1. In the case of the crime of breach of trust, since there is no need to determine the actual amount of damages for property, there is a concern that the execution of property right may be impossible, or when there is a risk of causing damages, the crime of breach of trust shall be established for the whole amount of the loan when the defendant involved in the act of illegal loan in violation of his duty. In the case where a third party has acquired it, the whole amount of the loan shall be the value of the profit of the property which the third party has acquired, and there is no issue as to whether part of the loan has been repaid. Thus, the decision of the court below to this purport is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out. The argument is without merit

2. The essence of the co-principal is a functional control by division of roles. Since the co-principal is a functional control by the co-principal, the co-principal is divided into two parts. Since the co-principal is a functional control by the co-principal, and the co-principal is not a control by the co-principal. According to the evidence presented by the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant, even though he was aware that the loan of this case was an illegal loan, prepared documents necessary for the loan to the defendant and obtained approval. Thus, the defendant's act should be deemed to have a functional control by the co-principal. Thus, the judgment of the court below which held the defendant's act as a co-principal is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as pointed out or in the rules of evidence. Thus,

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)