The crime of professional breach of trust requires that, in addition to causing property damage to the principal, the actor himself acquires a property benefit or causes a third party to obtain a property benefit due to the act of violating his duties. Therefore, even if damage was inflicted on the principal, the actor or If there is no fact that a third party has acquired property interest, the crime of breach of trust cannot be established (see the above Supreme Court Decision 2005 Do6439, Supreme Court Decision 2008 Do3792, etc.).
▲Requirements for the relevance of property profits and losses
Supreme Court Decision on November 25, 2021 Supreme Court decision in 2016Do3452
Recently, there was a Supreme Court precedent that states that in cases of breach of trust, a ‘certain correspondence’, or ‘relevance’, must be recognized between the property damage of the victim (principal) and the property interests of the person violating the duty. Supreme Court 2016 Do 3452 (violation of Saemaeul Geumgo Act, etc. - reversal and remand) decision made on November 25, 2021.
The defendant is an executive and employee of Saemaul Geumgo (= a person who handles other people's affairs as part of his/her job), and violated Saemaul Geumgo's regulations on management of surplus funds (violation of duty = breach of trust) by purchasing financial products from a financial institution. He was indicted on charges of breach of trust, etc., for causing an unreasonable amount of damage to the company and causing a financial institution (third party) to obtain profits equivalent to commissions. The 1st and 2nd trial rulings deemed the defendant guilty of professional breach of trust (guilty), but the Supreme Court ruled that there was a distinction between 'commissions (for purchasing financial products) acquired by a financial institution' and 'an undetermined amount of property damage incurred by Saemaeul Geumgo'. Since it was deemed that a certain relationship, such as a correspondence relationship, was not recognized, the second trial ruling was overturned and the case was returned (remand on grounds of not guilty).
▲Requirements for the relevance of property profits and losses
Supreme Court Decision on November 25, 2021 Supreme Court decision in 2016Do3452
Recently, there was a Supreme Court precedent that states that in cases of breach of trust, a ‘certain correspondence’, or ‘relevance’, must be recognized between the property damage of the victim (principal) and the property interests of the person violating the duty. Supreme Court 2016 Do 3452 (violation of Saemaeul Geumgo Act, etc. - reversal and remand) decision made on November 25, 2021.
The defendant is an executive and employee of Saemaul Geumgo (= a person who handles other people's affairs as part of his/her job), and violated Saemaul Geumgo's regulations on management of surplus funds (violation of duty = breach of trust) by purchasing financial products from a financial institution. He was indicted on charges of breach of trust, etc., for causing an unreasonable amount of damage to the company and causing a financial institution (third party) to obtain profits equivalent to commissions. The 1st and 2nd trial rulings deemed the defendant guilty of professional breach of trust (guilty), but the Supreme Court ruled that there was a distinction between 'commissions (for purchasing financial products) acquired by a financial institution' and 'an undetermined amount of property damage incurred by Saemaeul Geumgo'. Since it was deemed that a certain relationship, such as a correspondence relationship, was not recognized, the second trial ruling was overturned and the case was returned (remand on grounds of not guilty).
