The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, including the fact that the instant exchange contract was concluded between the Defendant and C, and found the Defendant guilty of the charge of breach of trust on the ground that: (a) the Defendant, who completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer regarding the instant forest owned by the Defendant, was a person who administers another’s business, and who applied for voluntary auction based on the said right without performing his/her duty to cancel the right to claim ownership transfer; (b) the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction based on the said right without performing the duty to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the aforementioned recognition and determination of the lower court are just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.