2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust, the term "an act in violation of the duty" includes all acts in violation of the fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of statutes, the content of the contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do758, Jan. 10, 2003). In order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust, the perception of occupational breach of trust as a subjective requirement, and thereby, the perception that he or a third party acquires his benefit and thereby causes loss to the principal. In other words, if the defendant denies the criminal intent of the crime of breach of trust, the facts constituting a subjective element of the crime of breach of trust in light of the nature of the object have to be proved by an indirect method that proves indirect facts that have considerable relation with the intention, and what constitutes an indirect fact should be reasonably determined by the observation or analysis of facts based on normal empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9066 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.). B.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below's judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

1) The instant B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”)

The apartment is completed for more than 20 years and problems such as water leakage, rupture, coloring, etc. due to aging.