배임행위의 기망행위에 대한 불가벌적 사후행위 여부

The issue of the target sentence is whether breach of trust after an act of cash acquired by fraud has committed is not punishable. The possibility of conforming to breach of trust depends on post action will satisfy elements of crime through thorough review. The prior trial judged the settlement of third party mortgage has already assessed in the facts of an offense of fraud not punishable. But the Supreme Court without a review of the subject of breach of trust, settlement of mortgage duties occurs through fraudulent contracts and those duties to third parties constitute a separate breach of trust in violation of his duty. The judgment of the prior trial the Supreme Court and all is not appropriate. Post-action must satisfy to be punished elements of crime and illegality. In the target case, the fraudulent conduct of defendants accompanying breach of trust have involved two types of sin, namely the possible types of conflict, but the subject in breach of trust can not be accepted. Thus, the acts of defendant constitute only fraud. These conclusions meet the direction we want to find of the location of breach of trust considering the recent Supreme Court's new understanding of breach of trust, for double transaction of movable property by restrictive interpretation of nature of breach of trust. Overlooking freedom of contract between individuals guaranteed by the constitutional law, such attitude to compensate for the failure of civil contract to by the breach of trust has to be avoided in terms of supplementary principle.