In cases of breach of trust, property damage includes not only a case where a real loss is incurred but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been caused. Determination of whether property damage has been made or not shall be understood from an economic point of view without legal judgment in relation to the property condition of the principal. Even if the act of breach of trust is null and void by legal judgment, where a real damage has been inflicted on the principal or a risk of actual damage to property has been inflicted on the principal due to an act of breach of trust from an economic point of view, it shall be deemed that the act of breach of trust has inflicted property damage. However, if a specific risk of such damage has not been incurred, the crime of breach of trust is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do14585, Mar. 25, 2010; 2010Do3643, Feb. 10, 2011). The lower court lawfully conspired between the Defendant B and the representative director of H (hereinafter “H”), and Defendant A, the actual manager of H, thereby acquiring the victim’s debt amount and its maximum amount (hereinafter “the maximum amount”).

The court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the crime of breach of trust was established on the ground that each of the instant collateral security rights cannot be deemed to have been established to secure the H’s obligation due to lack of evidence to deem that the Defendant borrowed money from

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, P et al. did not have a claim against H.