The subject of breach of trust in relation to the guidance of the representative director of mutual savings

Since the mutual credit fraternity business conducted by the mutual savings and finance company belongs to its business, the representative director of the above company is merely the agency of the company, and thus he is not a person who directly deals with his business in relation to the members of the mutual savings and finance company.

Article 356 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do1900 Delivered on February 10, 1976

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 78No1762 delivered on July 4, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant cannot be deemed to have expressed an intent to harm the interests of the members of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel of the personnel, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant intentionally violated

The principal agent of the offense of breach of trust is a person who administers another's business. The principal agent of the offense of breach of trust is the person who administers another's business, and the defendant is a kind of financial business and similar in character to the mutual credit fraternity business conducted by the Korea Mutual Saving and Finance Company, which was the representative director, and has a obligation and obligation between the company and its members, and the defendant is merely the agency of the company, and the defendant is not a person who directly deals with his business. Thus, since the defendant cannot be the principal agent of the offense of breach of trust in this case, the fact that the principal agent of the offense of breach of trust in this case did not pay the benefits to the fraternity recruited by the above company does not constitute the offense of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1900, Feb. 10, 1976). However, the judgment of the court below is insufficient in its explanation of its reasoning, since the defendant's opinion is identical to that of the party member in determining

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Judge) Hah-Jak-hak (Presiding Judge)