beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who represents the 3rd and fourth chairman of the 3rd and fourth chairman of the 4th chairman of the Seoul Seocho-gu shopping mall and manages the business affairs of the 3rd and fourth chairman of the 4th chairman.
A person who manages a shopping mall shall promote the common interests of occupants and users in accordance with the internal management rules, and shall be obligated to faithfully keep and manage management expenses, etc.
Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the foregoing duty and was owned by the private person (ju) in the enforcement of the said commercial building between October 201 and November 2013.
According to the records 11, those headings B02, B25, B26, B34, B36, B40, B41, B41, 209, 210, 211, and 212 seem to be referred.
When selling a store, according to the records of the store owned by 5,298,280 won and G with a total of 10% of the management expenses unpaid from around 2007, the above company referred to 203.
The sum of 2,787,702 Won 8,085,982, which is about 10% of the unpaid management expenses for E, was reduced arbitrarily.
Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the above amount from the above company and G, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the above commercial prosperity council.
2. Determination
A. In the context of breach of trust, the term "act in violation of the duty" includes any act that does not perform as a matter of course an act that is expected to be required under the provisions of statutes, the content of a contract, or the good faith principle, or an act that is expected not to perform as a matter of course, and thereby lacks a fiduciary relationship with the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do758, Jan. 10, 2003). In order to establish a crime of breach of trust on duty, the perception of breach of duty as a subjective element and the perception that the act causes damage to the principal, i.e., the awareness that he or a third party acquires the benefit and thereby causes damage to the principal. The Defendant denies the criminal intent of breach of trust.