The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The prosecutor charged the defendant with the crime of breach of trust, and the court below sentenced the defendant not guilty of the charges of this case.

Therefore, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the trial prior to remand judged not guilty of the facts charged of this case and sentenced the prosecutor to dismiss the appeal.

Therefore, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding the legal principles, and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of reversal and return on the grounds that the court erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) determined that the victim did not constitute a crime of breach of trust on the grounds of the following: (a) it is difficult to present the stage of performing a contract, such as the receipt of intermediate payments in the ordinary real estate sales contract, in the case of a real estate exchange contract; and (b) the victim withdraws his/her intention to cooperate in registration of F real estate on or around June

However, it is not impossible to determine the time when unilateral rescission of a contract is impossible in a real estate exchange contract, and considering the fact that the victim clearly indicated his intention to cooperate in the registration of F real estate under the name of the victim, and that there was no withdrawal of his intention to cooperate in the registration, the act of completing the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the above real estate under the name of another person shall constitute a crime of breach of trust.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

Judgment

The Defendant decided to sell B real estate to the victim in the instant facts charged.