배임죄의 본질과 이중매도인의 형사책임

Abstract

recedents of the Supreme Court recognized that the breach of trust of the seller was established for the dual sale of the real estate. One of the major reasons for their arguments was that the seller was the main agent in the breach of trust case as the one who dealt with the work of another person cooperating in preserving the buyer's property, based on his or her duty of cooperating in the registration transfer. Against this view, the counter argument arose that the seller in the dual sale of the real estate could not be the main agent in the breach of trust case because he or she could not be viewed as the one who dealt with the work for another, and the Supreme Court decreed in this case that the court could not charge the seller with the breach of trust in the double sale of the movables for starters. The Supreme Court's view is appropriate in denying the breach of trust being established in the double sale of movables. Reference cases did not deal with the dual sale of the real estate, but they denied the breach of trust being established on the same ground as for the above case in the matters of the reserved payment in substitutes for real estate. In light of the basic view of the Supreme Court that the criminal law should be barred from intervening in the realm of a civil case dominated by the rigid interpretation of criminal constituent features of the breach of trust and by the private autonomy, in the future, it is likely to be inclined to deny the breach of trust being established for the matters of the double sale, whether their objects are movables or real estate assets. In particular, it is so obvious that the seller's duty in the double sale does not amount to what is referred to as another's work in the breach of trust case. However, the ruling in this case makes it necessary to reconsider driving the plan of relief for the victim of the double sale into the realm of a civil suit. It is a very rare case that the victim is practically compensated for his or her damage. Even if, with luck, the seller does not disappear without a trace, but faithfully attends a trial, it sometimes takes years depending on the occasions before the damages are executed and the damage is compensated for. It is thought that the idea disregards this social reality of ours that the malicious double seller could get away from the criminal punishment on the grounds of the principles of “the freedom of contract fulfillment” and “supplement of criminal penalty.” Thus, as mentioned in the dissenting opinions against the ruling in this case, the need in accordance with criminal policy that the malicious seller should be criminally punished is being recognized, and it is thought that there is need for a solution for this. To meet the necessity of punishing the malicious seller, there is need for establishing a new provision with which the matters of the double sale are separately dealt with and it is expected that serious discussions about this are to arise.