If the stock owner fails to pay the fraternity to the designated fraternity, the nature of the breach of trust;

The obligation of the fraternity is to collect monthly payments from the fraternity members and provide them to the designated fraternity members on the date designated under an agreement with the fraternity members. Such duties of the fraternity are to handle the duties of the fraternity members who are others at the same time as their own duties of the fraternity. Thus, if the fraternity members have not paid monthly payments from the fraternity members without justifiable grounds even though they have collected all the monthly payments from the fraternity members, it constitutes a breach of trust in relation to the designated fraternity members, unless there are other special circumstances.

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 3864, Feb. 24, 1987) (Law No. 1987,589)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-ho

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No2852 delivered on July 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the facts established by the court of first instance or the court of first instance, which the court of first instance and the court of first instance maintained by the court below, are acceptable, and the court below's measures are also acceptable without recognizing the fact that the victim in this case agreed to withdraw from the fraternity or that there is a circumstance that may be a concern that the victim would not pay the fraternity after the receipt of the fraternity, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete deliberation.

2. The fraternity has the duty to collect monthly payment from the fraternity and pay it to the designated fraternity upon the time limit designated under an agreement with the fraternity. This duty of the fraternity is to manage the affairs of the fraternity members who are other people at the same time as the fraternity's own duties. Thus, if the fraternity members violate their duties even though all monthly payment was collected from the fraternity members, and did not pay it to the designated fraternity members without justifiable reasons, barring any special circumstances, the breach of trust shall be constituted in relation to the designated fraternity members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do230, Jul. 22, 1986; 86Do1744, Feb. 24, 1987).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, although the term of this case was operated by the method of determining the source of guidance around the time of the term, without setting a prior sequence, but the source of guidance including the defendant et al. agreed to pay the source of guidance to the victim on August 10, 1992, and if the form of operation of the term of this case was not determined in advance as the form of operation of the term of this case, such as the theory of lawsuit, the defendant has the duty to pay the source of guidance collected from the source of guidance to the paid victim of the term of this case. The defendant collected the credit term of this case from the source of guidance and did not pay it to the victim, and as long as the defendant did not pay it to the victim, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust in relation to the victim, the judgment below is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to a breach of trust or a breach of trust, such as the reasoning.

3. The issue is that the payment of the fraternity is deferred because the victim is likely to not make the payment in good faith after the receipt of the fraternity, and the deposit is made in the financial institution, and there was no criminal intent of embezzlement against the defendant. However, in this case where the victim, who had faithfully made the fraternity payment by the time of receiving it, did not have any specific circumstance that the court below did not pay the fraternity payment by the time of receiving it, the defendant cannot be exempted from the duty of guidance prohibition by the subjective judgment of the defendant, and it cannot be said that there was no criminal intent solely on the fact that the victim deposited the fraternity payment to the financial institution.

The precedent of the theory of the lawsuit (Law No. 86Do2343, Jun. 23, 1987) held that the fraternity does not have an obligation to pay the fraternity to the fraternity members who did not pay the fraternity members, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case, and the judgment of the court below does not violate the precedents of the party members.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)