In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. The grounds of appeal should be specified by citing facts expressed in the records of trial and in the examination of evidence by the court below, so the argument that evidence documents and grounds for appeal submitted by the court below shall not be a legitimate

2. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of attempted to commit the crime of breach of trust on the ground that the defendant transferred the name of the business permission to a third party for the lease of the above cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare, but the defendant agreed to transfer the above cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cab's name again when the contract for the lease of the above cabare cabare cab was terminated by the transfer of the defendant's name in the future, who is a business operator in the nature of the above business permission right. Thus, the transfer of the defendant's name of the business permission in the future is merely a obligatory obligation to perform the business of the defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant is a person handling

However, if the defendant was transferred the business permission title under the agreement to return when the lease contract is terminated with the lease agreement on the above cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare cabare, even if the defendant is in the position of the business permission authority in the external relation, the defendant can be said to be a person in charge of another person's business to the extent that it is managed, preserved, and returned at the time of the termination of the lease contract. Nevertheless, if the defendant intended to dispose of it to a third party in violation of the above duties and transfer the name, the defendant committed an act in violation of his duties as a person in charge of another person's business. Therefore, as seen above, the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person in charge of another person's business in the

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning attempted breach of trust and the guilty part concerning concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Daegu District Court which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)