(b) A person performing another's business;

B. The obligation of the transportation company in charge of managing and delegating vehicles is merely a mere obligation to restore the vehicle management consignment agreement to the land owner company, and thus, the above transportation company's business head or representative, etc. cannot be deemed as a person in charge of managing the said land owner's business. Thus, even if the transportation company again concluded the management consignment agreement with the said land owner company in violation of the agreement, the crime of breach of trust is not established.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, at around 20 January 1972, 197, Defendant 1 purchased at the location of the judgment of the court of first instance (A) 9-57 and 9-62, the permanent two vehicles belonging to the Gyeongbuk Transportation Company as of March 20, 1970, which were in fact managed and operated with ownership after entering the transportation company, and he entered the Gun, and the above two vehicles were leased at KRW 3,00,000, 1,000, and the above 1,000 and the above 1,000 and the 2,000, 1,000 to 3,00,000 from around 1, 1971 to May 22, 1972, 200 to 30,000,000 won of the above 1,000 won of the above 2,000,00 won of the above 7.

According to Article 5 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, the acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle becomes effective by registering its acquisition, loss, and the internal relationship of the parties as well as the external relationship unless there is any registration, and the ownership cannot be acquired even in the internal relationship of the parties. Thus, even if a person is a so-called motor vehicle without registration under his/her own name, it cannot be deemed as the owner of the motor vehicle unless he/she is registered under his/her own name. Since a person who leases or subleases the motor vehicle from a third party who is not a registered owner of the motor vehicle cannot be deemed as having a legal status of disposal of the motor vehicle, he/she cannot be deemed as a person who keeps another's property as stated in Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, even though he/she cannot be deemed as a person who keeps another's property under his/her own name and thus, he/she cannot be deemed as a person who has acquired the above property under his/her own own name and thus, he/she cannot be deemed as a person who has acquired the above new property or new property.

2. The grounds of appeal No. 2 (the part concerning Defendant 2 and Defendant 3) are examined.

The above judgment of the court of first instance is to serve as the head of the above trucking service company, and the defendant 3 concluded the above trucking service contract from 1966 to 1972 with the person who was the representative of the above trucking company and leased two of the above trucking services to the above Kim Jong-tae during the period of completion of his service with the above Kim Jong-tae at the place of June 1, 1970. The above judgment of the court of first instance is to allow the borrower to enter into the above contract of the vehicle management services with the above company and the vehicle management services contract with the above company and to recover the vehicle upon request of the borrower so that the above vehicle will be restored to the above agreement of the above company and to exercise its ownership, and if the above defendant 2 contracts were concluded with the above Kim Jong-tae, the head of the above company and the representative of the transportation company will cancel the entrustment contract with the above Kim Jong-tae and to obtain the above right of the borrower to purchase the above vehicle's own ownership and the right of sale from the above defendant 1 to the above company.

The subject of the crime of breach of trust under Article 355 (2) of the former Criminal Code shall be a person who is in the position of managing another person's business. The first instance court held that the above defendants 2 and 3 are the business head of the border transport company or the representative of the main office of the border transport company and the above main office of the truck management consignment contract between the above main office of the border transport company and the above main office of the branch office and the appointment and dismissal of the main office of the branch office of the above main office of the branch office shall be the business of the subcontractor, and the above defendants shall be the above main office of the vehicle management consignment contract between the above main office of the branch office and the above main office of the main office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the above main office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the above main office of the main office of the branch office of the defendant and the above main office of the main office of the defendant.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the original judgment against the Defendants, and remand the case to the Daegu District Court Panel Division, Daegu District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)