The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was on August 1, 2013, the Defendant sold spawn in the Defendant’s spawn field located in D at the time of residence to the victim C, and the Defendant was obligated to preserve the said spawn until the victim received the said spawn.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated his duties on September 5, 2013, and followed 150,000,000,000 won of the market value of the Defendant, and acquired the same amount of property profits and sustained the same amount of property damage to the victim.

2. The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains property benefits by an unlawful act of breach of duty and causes damage to another person who is the subject of the business. Thus, the subject of the crime must have the status of administering another’s business.

In order to be recognized as “management of another’s business,” it should be limited to cases where a party acts as an agent for another person in whole or in part and cooperate in preserving another’s property. The essential substance of the relationship between the two parties is to protect or manage another’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship among them, beyond a mere obligation under a fiduciary relationship. If the business is not a business of another person but a person’s own business, then it does not constitute a person who administers another’s business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3482, Feb. 27, 2014). Cases where a contract takes effect when one of the parties agrees to transfer a property right to the other party, and the other party agrees to pay the price thereof (Article 563 of the Civil Act). The obligation that the two parties are obliged to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract falls under “self-business” barring special circumstances.