Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, ① The victim may independently register the ownership transfer with the final and conclusive judgment ordering the Defendant to perform the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership. As such, the status of “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of breach of trust cannot be acknowledged, and the victim suffered property damage.

Even though it is difficult to see the difficulty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant asserted in the lower court that this part of the appeal is the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to register ownership transfer with respect to the portion of 10/12 out of E apartment No. 402 as indicated in the lower judgment constitutes “other person’s business.”

B) On the other hand, the crime of breach of trust is established when a person who is liable to register the transfer of ownership to another person by committing an act in violation of his/her duty, and thereby is in danger of being unable to perform the registration of the transfer of ownership, and the same applies to cases where a decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3882, Jul. 26, 2007; 2007Do7969, Jan. 31, 2008). (2) On the other hand, the lower court’s reasoning was duly adopted and investigated by evidence.