Nevertheless, around November 9, 2012, the Defendant borrowed F (G) buses from 65,00,000 won from NA as collateral without the consent of the victim at H in Gwangjuyang-si, and incurred property damage equivalent to the above money to the victim.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another’s business by acquiring pecuniary advantage through an act in violation of his/her duty, the subject of the crime must be in the position of administering another’s business.

Here, “a person’s business” in order to deal with another’s business is required to protect or manage another’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship between the parties, beyond a simple relationship of claims and obligations. If the business is not a person’s business but a person’s own business, the person does not constitute a person who administers another’s business, even if the principal substance of the relationship is not a person’s business

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do10479, Jan. 20, 201). In addition, when causing property damage in breach of trust includes not only a case where a real loss was inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been inflicted. Determination on the existence of property damage shall not be based on legal judgment in relation to the property status of the principal, but shall be based on economic perspective, and even if a legal judgment does not recognize any effect of the act of breach of trust in question, it shall be understood as an act of breach of trust