The remainder, excluding the part of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to six months of imprisonment.

A. In a case where a mistake of facts or a misapprehension of legal principles has been revealed in the middle, there is a liquidation obligation for the fraternity, and since there is no guidance prohibition obligation premised on the existence of guidance, the crime of breach of trust is not established with respect to the fraternity members, etc. whose scheduled date of receipt of the fraternitys after the dissolution of the fraternity operated by the defendant, but all the charges of this case are guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to determine the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in order to constitute “other’s business” as referred to in the crime of breach of trust, the principal content of the relevant relationship should reach the protection or management of the other’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship beyond a mere obligation under the fiduciary relationship. If the fraternity’s principal collects the fraternity from the fraternity’s members, the relevant fraternity’s custody amount has the nature of the amount entrusted to the fraternity’s owner for the sake of the principle of prohibition against the fraternity’s transfer. Therefore, the fraternity’s payment amount exceeds a simple contractual relationship between the fraternity’s principal who is to receive it, and is based on a fiduciary relationship that protects or manages the said fraternity’s payment for the sake of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the duty of care prohibition constitutes another’s business as referred to in the crime of breach of trust.

However, if the fraternity does not collect and keep the fraternity from the members, the obligation to pay the fraternity, which is to be borne by such a state, is merely a mere obligation under a credit relationship that does not reach the above trust relationship, and thus cannot be deemed to belong to another person’s business. This is against the agreement with the fraternity.