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, in order to deal with another’s business, the intrinsic content of the relationship between the parties should not be protected or managed on the basis of the relationship between the parties, but rather, on the basis of the relationship between them (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do363 Decided August 21, 2014). In a case where a pledge right is established on a claim against a third obligor as security against the third obligor against the third obligor, the pledger cannot extinguish the right under the pledge without the consent of the pledgee, or not make any change detrimental to the interests of the pledgee (Article 352 of the Civil Act). In addition, if the third obligor notifies the third obligor of the establishment of the pledge right, or the third obligor gives consent, if the third party pays a debt that is the subject of the pledge right without the consent of the pledgee, the pledgee may still claim the third obligor to pay the debt directly or deposit the amount of the claim to be repaid (Article 353(2) and (3) of the Civil Act). Therefore, in such a case, the pledgee is granted the pledge right.

the pledgee, who is responsible for the affairs of the other party in relation to the pledgee, has caused a loss to the pledgee or a risk of the loss by doing an act in violation of his duties.

It cannot be said that the crime of breach of trust is not established.

must be viewed.

B. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

On July 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on July 15, 201, the rent deposit of KRW 160 million; and (b) from August 5, 201, from August 5, 201, to August 5, 2013, the rent period of KRW 808,202, the rent period of KRW 160,000,000.