배임죄의 양형기준과 구체적 사례에 있어서 형량의 문제점

All recent laws on economic democratization were suggested as problems in campaign pledges of last general election processes centering on resolving economic polarization or Chaebol regulation, and a proposition seems to be assumed such like punishing levels on businessmen, specially to the head of large companies or their family members had to be much more strengthened than the past. Actually, there are many perspectives that equity is insufficient when comparing criminal responsibilities of high-ranking executives are compared with other general crimes in case their management actions are assumed to the breach of trust crime at Korea society. Blinking sarcasms are continuously being well-known such like Chaebol heads are avoiding actual prison by being sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and 5 years probation, and they are endowing special advantages through amnesty, and questions are caused to the justice of criminal punishments and lowering trust on judiciary as well owing to serious unbalance compared to sentences to general people because sentences to Chaebol are too generous. Strengthened criminal responsibilities are insisted generally by increasing previous penalties prescribed by laws on the breach of trust crime of high-ranking executives and adjusting sentencing guidelines strictly, and also possibly restraining probation to the maximum. However, there are some worries on the possibility of degenerated forms like squeezing large companies under social atmospheres that center on corporate maturity, social responsibility, and public interest activities etc contrary to the past when focused on growth only while unstable economic situations at home and abroad make the popular economy difficult and economic crimes are not lessened as well. Also, judiciary should raise a counter-question whether heads of large companies are rather getting reverse discriminations by being swept away from the stream of times called economic democratization. Of course, this does not mean exemptions of heavy criminal punishments to breach of trust actions to which other specific illegality are committed such as accounting fraud, tax evasion, slush fund composition and misappropriation, and illegal loan etc. Merely, some discussions on weighted criminal punishments toward pure judging behaviors on management that cannot but to be done frequently by high-ranking executives at least or violating actions on faith principles that shall be resolved from the scope of management ethics are likely to have rooms for reconsiderations.