The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain such benefit by an act in violation of his/her duty and thereby causes loss to the principal. Here, "act in violation of his/her duty" includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the person who delegated the management of the business by failing to perform an act as a matter of course which is expected not to perform, or by performing an act as a matter of course which is expected not to perform, pursuant to the provisions of statutes, the content and nature of the business to be handled, or the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do520, Jun. 24, 2004; 2005Do4640, May 29, 2008); and "when doing damage to property" includes cases where damage to the principal's property status is comprehensively deemed to mean cases where the damage to the principal's property status is inflicted, and cases where a real damage is inflicted, as well as cases where the actual damage

Determination as to the existence of such property damage shall not be based on legal judgment, but on an economic point of view. This includes not only cases where positive damages, such as the reduction of property directly, such as disposal of property, or the reduction of property burden, such as guarantee or provision of security, have been caused, but also cases where profits have not been gained due to the act of breach of duty, i.e., the occurrence of passive damages (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003; 2005Do7911, May 15, 2008). Such passive damages refer to cases where the increase of property can be expected objectively and automatically, but such increase of property is not achieved due to the act of breach of duty. Therefore, the property condition and the situation where the act of breach of duty has not been realized.