In the event a debtor has agreed to or created a mortgage on movable property owned by him/her in accordance with the Act on Mortgage on Motor Vehicles and other Specific Movables to secure a pecuniary obligation, the debtor's obligation to provide the movable property as a security, i.e., the obligation to maintain and preserve the value of the security, or not to damage, reduce or destroy the security, or the obligation to cooperate in the creditor's exercise of the security right, such as the obligation to deliver the security to the creditor or his/her designated person at the time of the exercise of the security right, is all the obligation of the debtor to cooperate in the exercise of the security

Therefore, the obligor’s performance of the above obligation is merely an obligor’s own business, and the obligor cannot be deemed to have entrusted the obligee’s business based on a fiduciary relationship with the obligee beyond an ordinary contractual relationship. Therefore, the obligor cannot be deemed to fall under “a person who administers another’s business,” who is the subject of breach of trust, in relation to the obligee.

Therefore, even if a debtor reduces or loses the value of a security by disposing of a security to a third party, thereby causing danger to the creditor’s exercise of security right or the realization of a claim through this, a crime of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2020Do6258 Decided October 22, 2020). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there was no proof of crime.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of breach of trust.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.