The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Between the obligee and the obligor who entered into an accord and satisfaction promise on real estate for the purpose of securing the gist of the grounds for appeal, a separate fiduciary relationship exists from the legal relationship that caused the secured claim, and thus, if the obligor disposes of the real estate concerned to a third party in violation of a fiduciary relationship, the fiduciary relationship arising from the accord and satisfaction promise constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while operating D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), carried out a project to implement “F” apartment (250 households) on ten parcels outside 10, Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hong-gun.

On September 22, 2011, the Defendant agreed to borrow KRW 300,000,000 from the victim G to raise funds necessary for the said implementation project at an unsound place. In return, the Defendant offered 25 square meters of the sales contract for the said 6-type six units of apartment units (No. 103, 102, 104, 202, 203, 204, 205) as collateral. On December 22, 2011, the Defendant offered 10,000 won of the sales contract for the said 6-type six units of apartment units (No. 100,000 won per each household) with a loan from the financial right after the completion of the said apartment unit, and provided 50,000,000,000 won as the top priority, D could not repay by December 22, 2011.

On October 7, 201, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 200,000,000,000, which was actually agreed upon by the victim at a non-place on the above-mentioned basis from the victim; (b) issued a promissory note and receipt to the said six households at the victim’s request; and (c) changed the sales contract for the said six households at the victim’s request to the third or fourth floor of the said apartment unit to the third or fourth floor; and (d) changed the sales contract for the said six households to the third or fourth floor of the said apartment unit.