beta
Main Issues
Details of intention in breach of trust
Summary of Judgment
The crime of breach of trust stipulated in Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business commits an act in violation of one's own or a third person's pecuniary advantage, thereby causing loss to the principal. As one of the constituent elements of the crime of breach of trust, there must be an act in violation of one's duty to the person who administers another's business, and the person who administers another's business should be aware that his/her act in violation of one's duty to do so.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Defense Counsel
Attorney Park Do-hwan
Judgment of the lower court
Incheon District Court Decision 85No605 delivered on November 14, 1985
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The crime of breach of trust stipulated in Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business performs an act in violation of one's own or a third person's pecuniary advantage, and thereby inflicts loss on the principal. As one of the constituent elements of the crime of breach of trust, one must have an act in violation of one's duty to the person who administers another's business, and if there is no awareness that another person's business is in violation of one's duty, the intention of breach of trust should be avoided. If there is no awareness, the court below should have the intention of breach of trust. In light of the records, the court below's decision is justified in holding that the forest of this case was purchased in the defendant's door and half of half of half, and it was completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-indicted who is the assistant of the defendant. After the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name on the ground of inheritance, it is recognized that the defendant did not have any evidence to recognize the sale of the above another's business in violation of one's duty.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)