The subject of breach of trust with respect to the business of another person who is obligated to be treated by a corporation

With respect to another person's business which is obligated to deal with by a corporation, a representative body, who is a natural person dealing with another person's business on behalf of the corporation, is the subject of breach of trust.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2595 delivered on October 10, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Do2339 delivered on October 23, 1984

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No3261 delivered on September 1, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the subject of the crime of breach of trust should be the person who administers another's business. According to the facts charged in this case, it is clear that the victims of this case bears the obligation to make a provisional registration for the establishment of a mortgage and the preservation of the right to claim transfer of ownership against the 5-1 factory site 3,000 square meters of the Jung-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, to the victims of this case, and the defendant merely is the representative agency of the company, and the defendant is merely the representative agency of the company, and therefore there is no relation between the defendant and the above victims, and thus, the defendant is not guilty of the crime of breach of trust.

However, with respect to another person's business which is obligated to perform by a corporation, the representative agency which is a natural person who administers another person's business on behalf of the corporation shall be the subject of the crime of breach of trust, i.e., the person who administers another person's business. In this case, although the victims of this case have the legal obligation to make a provisional registration for establishing a neighboring mortgage and preserving the right to claim for transfer of ownership on the factory site, the person who is obligated to perform the above registration affairs shall be the defendant himself, which is the representative agency of the above company, and therefore, the defendant shall be the person in a position to perform the above registration affairs for the victims of this case, such as the public forest corporation, etc.

The court below's conclusion that the defendant is not the subject of the crime of breach of trust is justifiable for the reasons stated in its holding that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of breach of trust and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)

The erroneously returned of the Supreme Court judge is impossible to be appointed as an overseas business trip.The judge of the Supreme Court;