The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, from September 2009 to March 2015, established and operated a “G car page” on the Internet NAB, as part of the business, while he was in charge of business affairs, such as student consultation and attraction, from D Admission Research Institute (E) operated by the victim C in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was in charge of business affairs, such as student consultation and attraction.

The Defendant, even if he created and operated a carpet, screen, etc. related to the “E” in accordance with the contract prepared at the time of entry, was obligated to transfer the right of operation at the time of departure to the “E”, and thus, if he retires from the company, he/she shall transfer the right of operation of the “G” carpet to the victim.

Nevertheless, on March 2015, the Defendant retired from the “E” and changed the name of the operator of the Kafbook to H, which was known to the general public, in violation of the duty to return the right to operate the Kafbook, and the Defendant, while working as the vice president, who is the victim’s competitor, was employed in the public relations of the Kafbook by being employed in the company where the vice president of the IMO, a competitor of the victim, is the representative.

As a result, the Defendant obtained H property benefits equivalent to KRW 12 million and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal principle of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain such benefit through an act in violation of one’s duty, thereby causing damage to the principal. Here, “a person who administers another’s business” refers to a person who vicariously executes another’s business concerning the management of property or cooperates in preserving another’s property, based on a bilateral trust relationship between the two parties. If the nature of the business belongs to one’s own business, not to another’s business, it cannot be deemed that a person who administers another’s business

Supreme Court Decision 200