The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In relation to the crime of breach of trust, the Defendant purchased the land from K only on April 2, 2012, since he/she was in the position of a mandatory agent delegated to sell the land (hereinafter “instant land”) which is the owner of Gangwon-gun L, Gangwon-gu L, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”). As such, the Defendant was in the position of administering another person’s business in relation to the victim.

It can not be seen that the establishment of the right to collateral security with the consent of K on January 12, 2012 before the defendant purchased it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust.

In addition, the defendant should have obtained the consent of the victim at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security of this case, and even if there was no consent, there should be presumed consent

B. The Defendant, with the recognition that he would consent to the “survey of Boundary” at the time, prepared a power of attorney, and thus, the Defendant’s complaint cannot be deemed to be false, and even if it is false, the Defendant did not have any intention to make a false accusation without the awareness of falsity.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion on the crime of breach of trust, 1) The following circumstances are revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, i.e., the land owner of this case.

K in the court of first instance, at the court of first instance, the Defendant sought to sell the instant land and requested that the instant land be sold. Since there was an agreement between the parties to sell and purchase the land, on July 8, 2011, the Defendant prepared a power of delegation on the sale of the instant land and stated that the Defendant delegated all the matters concerning the sale of the instant land to the Defendant. ② On September 8, 201, the Defendant sold the instant land to the victim on September 8, 201, and indicated the seller as T in the contract, not K, and ③ at the time of the police investigation, the Defendant sold the instant land to the Defendant around April 2, 2012.

The defendant, on September 4, 201, stated in the court of the first instance, reversed his statement, and the defendant.