The judgment below

Of the above, the part concerning Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant

A.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the sentence of the lower court (ten months in prison) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination as to Defendant A prior to examining the Defendant’s assertion.

The summary of the charge of breach of trust concerning the Defendant is as follows. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the witness F’s testimony in the lower court, the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s suspect against the Defendant, the commercial building lease contract, permanent residence certificate, and the confirmation of facts.

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

In the crime of breach of trust, "when property damage is incurred" includes not only a case of causing a real loss but also a case of causing a risk of causing a property loss, but also a case of not causing a risk of such loss, the crime of breach of trust shall not be established

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2142 Decided May 24, 2012. According to the foregoing ruling, the act of assuming debt obligations under the name of a corporation for the purpose of promoting its own interest does not constitute a crime of breach of trust on the grounds that the other party cannot be deemed to have caused or risk to cause damage to a corporation since it has no legal effect when the other party knew or could have known the intention of the representative director. We examine this part of the charges in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine

The Defendant offered to a third party (K) a claim for the return of lease deposit equivalent to KRW 30 million equivalent to the amount of the victim’s share without obtaining permission from the victim. Even according to the facts charged itself, the Defendant is merely an act of disposing of the victim’s claim without any authority, and thus, is not legally effective. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the risk of damage has occurred to the victim. Even if not, it is not, in other words, under the Civil Act.