The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On May 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Gumi-si, Gumi-si, the Defendant’s wife, decided to sell the purchase price of KRW 2.65 billion to the Victim G; (b) KRW 5 billion out of the down payment in tin; (c) received KRW 245 million in the remainder of the down payment on May 6, 2013; (d) received KRW 100 million in the intermediate payment on May 30, 2013; and (e) received the remainder of KRW 100 million in the remainder payment on the condition that the Defendant completed the building lease agreement; (e) obtained the remainder of the payment date on July 10, 2013 on the condition that the Defendant completed the building lease agreement; and (e) obtained the remainder of the payment date on the remainder of KRW 1.4 billion in the interest of each of the instant real estate from the Defendant’s obligee on the remainder of KRW 1,500,000,000,00.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another’s business by acquiring pecuniary advantage through an act in violation of his/her duty, the subject of the crime must be in the position of administering another’s business.

Here, “a person who administers another’s business” is required to protect or manage another’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship between the parties, beyond a mere contractual obligation. If the business is not a business of another person but a business of one’s own, then the business is beneficial to the other party and bears the obligation to manage that business.