2. Determination

A. In full view of the legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and the evidence rules, the lower court, which determined that the elements of a crime and the facts charged were proven, is justifiable for

(1) The subject of the crime of breach of trust is a person who administers business on behalf of another person, and the subject of the act and the principal are clearly separate from the subject of the act in so-called one-called one-person company, and the subject of the act and the principal are subject to the crime of breach of trust when property damage occurs to the principal company. Thus, even if the damage is caused to the shareholder, there is no complaint for the crime of breach of trust already established.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do230 delivered on December 13, 1983. Even if the victim F Co., Ltd. was a D1 at the time of the issuance and delivery of the instant promissory note and authentic deed, since it does not affect the establishment of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by D, even if the defendant thought it at the time of such act (the defendant seems to have never known the existence of P, which is the actual owner of FF shares at the time of the conclusion of the acquisition of the shares contract and the preparation of the promissory note), he did not know the existence of P, which is the actual owner of the FF shares at the time of the defendant's duties (the defendant did not know the existence of the FF shares at the time of the acquisition of the shares contract) at the time of the defendant's duties (the director of the E Strategy Planning Office of the company with D representative director, the company's financial structure, and the acquisition of the victim Co., Ltd. according to D's instructions).