A. Whether a solicitation that belongs to legitimate business affairs of a person who received evidence may be an illegal solicitation for the crime of taking property in breach of trust against the person who received evidence (affirmative)

B. Whether a solicitation for frequently broadcasting only a specific number of singing on a broadcast program constitutes an illegal solicitation for the crime of breach of trust (affirmative)

A. The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(2) of the same Act are related to a necessary accomplice. However, this does not necessarily mean that a person who suffered property in breach of trust and a person who acquired property in violation of trust shall be punished together, but it may be an illegal solicitation for a person who acquired property in violation of Article 357(

B. The illegal solicitation against the receiver of the crime of receiving property in breach of trust refers to a solicitation that is contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith, even though it does not constitute a degree of occupational breach of trust, and thus, it means a solicitation that the producer who deals with the business of producing, withdrawing, etc. a program in a broadcasting station shall not broadcast a certain number of singing in a timely manner, and the audience’s authorization and response may not broadcast a certain number of singing in a fair and fair manner, even though there are duties to broadcast a number of singing in the broadcast program, it is against social rules or the principle of good faith.

Article 357 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Do708 delivered on June 12, 1979 (Gong1979, 12050) Na. 90Do2251 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Dong)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Yoon-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No4003 delivered on September 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (2) of the same Act mean the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the crime of taking property in breach of trust, but it does not necessarily mean that the person taking property and the person taking property should be punished together, and the person taking property may make an illegal solicitation even if they belong to a legitimate business (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do708 delivered on June 12, 1979). In addition, the crime of taking property in breach of trust and taking property in violation of Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act refers to a solicitation with the content of contrary to social rules

According to the records of this case, although the number of needs to be displayed on the virtual programs produced at the time while working as a radio producer for the Korea Broadcasting System was restricted, the defendant can be recognized that he received a request from the number of viewers at the original instance trial or its members to frequently broadcast the above programs with music, and received 7,90,000 won in total from the title of honorariums on 31 occasions. Since a broadcast is responsible for public responsibility and the impartiality and public nature of its contents should be maintained (see Articles 4 and 5 of the Broadcasting Act). Thus, the defendant who deals with affairs such as production, withdrawal, etc. of programs in a broadcasting station is not allowed to continue to broadcast only a certain number of singing, and it is justified for the court below to have acknowledged that the defendant has a limited solicitation to misunderstanding the legal principles of trust and good faith as seen above, even if there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above, since there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fairness and fairness of broadcasting, which are against the principles of trust and good faith.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)