If the trustee returns the consigned goods to the original right to request the return, not the truster, the nature of the breach of trust;

Even if the defendant delivered this case to the non-indicted who is the right to claim the return, it is nothing more than delivered by the defendant that the complainant should return the loan, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant inflicted damage on the complainant who is the right to claim the return, and there is no proof as to the fact that the defendant inflicted damage on the principal who is the elements of the crime of breach of trust.

Article 355 of the Criminal Act, Article 213 of the Civil Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court 200

This case is dismissed.

The facts charged in this case is that the defendant, from September 15, 4292, was an agent of the cargo ship that operates between Busan and the Yan-Eup port and is engaged in the entrusted cargo transportation business. On December 7, 4292, the defendant received from the victim non-indicted 1 an amount equivalent to 1.30,000 square meters of the 240-speed market price from the victim non-indicted 1 to the Busan port transportation ship at around August 10, 429, and arrived at the Busan port at the Busan port at around 10,00,000, and delivered the 1.30,000 square meters to the non-indicted 1 at the city of Busan. However, the defendant asserted ownership on the ground that the defendant violated his duty, thereby making the son gain profits by delivering it to the non-indicted 2 in wartime and caused damage to the non-indicted 1 in wartime. Accordingly, according to the defendant's voluntary statement in the main process and the record of 11 case, the defendant can be entrusted to the non-indicted 2 to the port.

However, according to the prosecutor’s statement on the witness Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, the complainant of this case, made a statement on the source of this case from Nonindicted 3 (7). However, according to the prosecutor’s witness statement on Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 3 was aware of Nonindicted 1, the complainant of Nonindicted 2’s possession of piracy since he was a discharged soldier, who was merely an employee of Nonindicted 2, and was without any asset or ability to sell piracy, (60). Of the statement on Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3 was aware of Nonindicted 2’s possession of piracy (63) and Nonindicted 5’s disposal of piracy in the statement on Nonindicted 6’s witness handling of the statement by the senior judicial police officer, Nonindicted 3 was replaced with Nonindicted 1’s subsequent statement on the witness of Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, who was not aware of Nonindicted 1’s possession of Nonindicted 2, the police force of this case, and it was also impossible to see that he was not aware of Nonindicted 3’s unlawful possession of 1, a second witness (16).

Thus, Non-Indicted 2 is in the position of returning Non-Indicted 1 to Non-Indicted 2, who is the complainant, whose ownership of the fishery materials has been infringed without any cause and who is entitled to demand the return of the fishery materials.

Therefore, even if the defendant delivered this case to the non-indicted 2, who is the right to claim the return of the fish paper, even if the non-indicted 1, the complainant, delivered the order to return the fish paper to the non-indicted 2, and even if this damage was inflicted on the non-indicted 1, the defendant cannot be deemed to have inflicted damage on the non-indicted 1, who is the right to claim the return of the fish paper, and there is no proof that the defendant inflicted damage on the principal, which is the element of the crime of breach of trust. Even if not, there is no evidence that the non-indicted 2, in the evidence of exhibition and the prosecutor's statement of the non-indicted 2, he received a custody certificate (75) by purchasing the defendant from the non-indicted 2, who is the witness of the non-indicted 2, that the same person would not own the fish paper from the date of arrival in Busan among the interrogation protocol of the defendant's suspect to the non-indicted 3, who was the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3's witness's reply to the non-indicted 2, and the witness's reply to the non-indicted 4.

In full view of the above, it is sufficient to recognize that the true owner of the fish in this case is the non-indicted 2, and that he believed that he has the right to claim the return to that person and returned it to that person.

Therefore, the defendant, like the previous statement, thought that Non-Indicted 1 should return to Non-Indicted 2, such as his statement, led to the perception that he would cause damage to Non-Indicted 1, the principal, and therefore there is no proof of the criminal intent.

In addition, the judgment of the court below, which is the same place, is pronounced not guilty under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is without merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 364 (2) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yoon-chul (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-dong, and Hongnam