The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary benefits through an unlawful act of breach of trust and causes damage to another person who is the subject of the business, the subject of the crime must be a person who administers another’s business. If such business is not a person’s business but a person’s own business, the subject of the crime is not a person who administers another’s business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1172, Feb. 26, 2009; 2008Do10479, Jan. 20, 201). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized the first instance judgment as justifiable, and rejected the prosecutor’s appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court of fact-finding, is merely an error of free evaluation of evidence and probative value by the court of fact-finding.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust

The Supreme Court precedents asserted in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus, are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.