All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that in the case of this case, the crime of breach of trust is not established by using the purport of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do363 Decided August 21, 2014. However, in the case where the above en banc Decision, which was merely a pre-contract for payment in kind with regard to real estate which will acquire ownership in the future by testamentary gift, and the extent of trust of the other party is different, the purport of the above en banc Decision is not applicable as it is because the facts or the degree of trust of the other party is different. This case should be viewed as the case where the Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5975 Decided September 9, 2010, which recognized the establishment of the crime of breach of trust by deeming the Defendant who

(2) The court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the status of a person administering another's business in breach of trust, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: ① (a) the Defendants borrowed KRW 100,000,00 from the victim on January 30, 2013 as the period of repayment on December 1, 2012; (b) the Defendants and the victims and the Defendants newly constructed E-Ba H, I, and J (hereinafter “each of the instant loans”) on two parcels of land, L-si and L-si as collateral for the above loan obligation; (c) the Defendants agreed to receive a refund of the above loan obligation from the victim to deliver to the victims; and (d) the Defendants agreed to receive a refund of the above loan obligation, and accordingly, issued the written contract to the owner of each of the instant loans to the Defendant B and the purchaser as the victim; and (b) the Defendants failed to pay the above loan obligation and delivered the written contract to the victims on September 10, 2013.