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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of trust

A. Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another’s business to gain pecuniary advantage by violating one’s duty, thereby causing damage to another person who is the subject of the business, the subject of the crime must have the status of administering another’s business

In this context, “a 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, in cases where such business is not a person’s business but a person’s own business, it cannot be deemed as a person who administers another’s business even if it is a person

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do2490 delivered on April 28, 1987, etc.). B.

(1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “The Defendant: (a) changed the policyholder’s name after the Defendant joined the insurance contract for each month after paying the monthly insurance premium (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”) and managed the instant insurance money for the victim due to the circumstances of the victim; (b) thus, there is a duty to properly preserve the insurance money. However, the Defendant violated his duty, such as lending or cancelling the instant insurance contract as collateral, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 271,791,828, and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount as the victim sustained; and (c) the first instance judgment convicted the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant, upon receiving the instant insurance from the victim’s succession, agreed to pay approximately KRW 100 million of the premium already paid (hereinafter “prepaid premium”), acquired the right to dispose of the instant insurance, and thereafter, filed an appeal as to the violation of trust, on the ground that it does not constitute an act of breach of trust, on the following grounds: (a) provided or canceled the instant insurance as security; and (b) provided or canceled the instant

(iii).