The Defendant, at the home of the Defendant, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 101, 1703, and 1703, had the victim D join the above fraternity and received the payment from the victim normally during the above period. In such a case, the Defendant, as a leader of the above fraternity, has the duty to pay the victim KRW 20 million.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated his duties and did not pay KRW 20 million to the victims of the above 2nd unit, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the above amount and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victims.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute a “other person’s business” as referred to in the crime of breach of trust, the relevant legal principle 1) should have the essential content of the relationship when it comes to protect or manage the other person’s property based on the fiduciary relationship beyond a mere obligation under the fiduciary relationship. If the transferor collects the entire amount from the fraternity members, the deposit amount shall have the nature of the amount entrusted to the transferor for the sake of the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the transferor’s obligation to maintain the principle of trust is based on a fiduciary relationship that protects or manages the said deposit amount for the sake of the principle of trust and good faith beyond a simple relationship between the fraternity members to whom it is paid, and thus, the obligation to maintain the principle of trust based on this constitutes another person’s business as referred to in the crime of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2343, Jun. 23, 1987). Determination on the successful bid, or the above legal principle related to the subject of the breach of trust agreement or the subject of trust number.