logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.12.14 2018노49
업무상배임
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant paid compensation for the expenses incurred in the event room of this case as prescribed by the relevant regulations, such as the Regulations on Travel Expenses of Public Officials, and according to the above public official travel expenses regulations, even if the compensation for the expenses incurred in the event room remains, there was no need to re-

Therefore, the defendant's act does not correspond to "an act of violation of duty", and the defendant cannot be found to have the intention of breach of duty, and the defendant's act causes damage to the victim I group or the risk of damage.

shall not be effective.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles in the crime of occupational breach of trust includes any act that does not perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of law, the terms of a contract, or the good faith principle, or an act that is expected not to perform as a matter of course, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4640, May 29, 2008, etc.). In addition, in the crime of breach of trust, the crime of breach of trust includes any act that has a fiduciary relationship with the principal, by recognizing that the principal causes, or is likely to cause, damage to property, or that a third party obtains property benefits. The purpose of the judgment of the court below is not required to obtain property benefits from the principal or a third party, and such recognition does not constitute a legal act of violation of the provisions of the law, such as travel expenses, etc. as stated in its reasoning.

arrow