All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The crime of breach of trust is established when a person administering another’s business commits an act in violation of one’s duty by acquiring, or causing a third party to acquire, pecuniary advantage. Here, an act in violation of one’s duty includes any act in violation of one’s fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform, or by doing, an act in contravention of one’s duty, as a matter of course, an act in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business to be handled, in light of the provisions of statutes,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1417, Jun. 8, 1990). In addition, when property damage is inflicted in breach of trust, the term “when property damage is inflicted” includes not only a case where a real damage is inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been inflicted. The determination of whether property damage has been inflicted ought to be grasped from an economic point of view, instead of a legal judgment, in relation to

Therefore, even if the act of breach of trust is null and void by legal judgment, if the act of breach of trust causes a real loss to the principal or a risk of actual loss of property, it constitutes a crime of breach of trust as it constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do2963 delivered on May 26, 1992, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the Defendant decided to transfer real estate purchased from R and decided to complete the title trust and the registration of transfer of ownership to V, a member of P farm, under the agreement of the P farm board of directors, under the name of the Defendant, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in X-designated under the name of the Defendant, and the rules of the P farm association on disposal of real estate shall be the board of directors.