The meaning of "the person who administers another's business" who is the subject of the breach of trust

Since the crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business acquires property gains by the act of breach of one's duty and causes damage to another person who is the subject of another's business, the subject of the crime must be the person who administers another's business. In this context, "the person who administers another's business" refers to cases where the principal content is that the person has a duty to protect or manage another's property based on bilateral trust relationship. Thus, if the business is not another's business but for another person's own business, it cannot be viewed as a person who administers

Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do2245 delivered on May 11, 1976, 81Do277 delivered on September 28, 1982, and 84Do2127 delivered on December 26, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 86No373 delivered on October 22, 1986

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged 20,000,000,000 won per 20,000,000 won with 34-2 notary public at the time of May 11, 1984, as follows: the defendant contracted construction work with 60,00,000 won for 13-4, 3 apartment houses (12 households) to the victim in 12 households in 19,00,00 in 20,00,000 which the defendant constructed at the law office of Jeonbuk-dong, Jeonbuk-gun, the court below held that 20,000,000,000 won for each of the above 12 households in 30,000,000 won for each of the above households, and recognized 16,000,0000,000 won for 20,0000,0000 won for each of the above apartment houses, and thus, it violated the above 16,30,15,06,000,0,00.

2. However, since the crime of breach of trust is established that a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary advantage through a violation of one's duty and causes damage to another person who is the subject of the business, the subject of the crime must be the person who administers another's business. The "person who administers another's business" refers to a case where the principal contents are that the person has the duty to protect or manage another's property based on a bilateral trust relationship. Thus, if the business is not another person's business but for another person's own business, it cannot be viewed as a person who administers another's business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do2777, Sept. 28, 1982; 84Do2127, Dec. 26, 1984). Since an agreement between the defendant and the court below granting the right to sell the apartment house of this case between the defendant and the defendant in this case, the defendant's duty to manage the above apartment house by delegation of one's obligation to pay the construction price, it is not a simple obligation of the defendant's obligation of performance.

Therefore, even if the defendant violated the above several obligations by completing the ownership transfer registration or the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the fourth household in the apartment house, as confirmed by the court below, it is merely an execution of the defendant's own business, and as a result, it cannot be held that the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of breach of trust even if the defendant failed to meet the above in-depth common sense. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on another person's business, which is a requisite for establishing the crime of breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument points out

3. Therefore, the judgment below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)