The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendants’ duty to complete the registration of the establishment of a mortgage to E in accordance with the letter of repayment written by the Defendants to E is merely a civil obligation and is not a “other person’s business.” Thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed a “person who administers another’s business,” which is the subject of the crime of breach of trust. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that convicted the Defendants of the crime of breach

2. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of the D Hospital in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and the head of the D Hospital, and the defendant B is the person who was the head of the above hospital, and they are the father and father of each other.

From July 2014 to August 2014, the Defendants borrowed KRW 450 million as the name of hospital operation expenses from E as the name of hospital operation expenses.

In addition, on October 24, 2014, when the provisional registration right of the F Co., Ltd. established on the site of the above D Hospital owned by the Defendant A is extinguished, the Defendants prepared a written statement of repayment with a view to setting the right to collateral security in the order following the first priority of the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount of KRW 5.46 billion) of G Union, which is the first priority of the borrowed money, to E, and thus, upon the extinction of the above provisional registration right, there was a duty to set the right to collateral security to E upon the extinction of the above provisional registration right.

Nevertheless, on January 2, 2015, the Defendants, in violation of their duties, set up a second-class collective security right with the maximum debt amount of KRW 720 million to H in the land and building site of the said D Hospital on January 2, 2015, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to KRW 450 million and suffered property damages equivalent to the same amount to E.

3. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged on the premise that the Defendants constituted “a person who administers another’s business” under Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act.

4. The ownership of a creditor by a mortgage contract to secure a monetary obligation of a debtor shall be subject to a judgment of the party.