The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s house located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around December 2008 to sell part of the shares (3/17) to the victim the neighboring E site, which constitutes the boundary between the Defendant and the victim C, and the neighboring E site (hereinafter “instant land”) of the size of 366 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”); and (b) paid a total of KRW 7.5 million from the damaged party by the amount of KRW 6th of the purchase price until the same month; and (c) thus, the duty to divide the said land and cooperate with the victim so that the registration of ownership transfer can be completed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in violation of the foregoing duty, sold the instant land to F and G on December 9, 2015, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership to F and G on December 29, 2015, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to KRW 11,965,00 in the market price of the instant five square meters of land and causing damage to the victim.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another’s business by acquiring pecuniary advantage through an act in violation of his/her duty, the subject of the crime must be in the position of administering another’s business.

Here, in order to deal with another person’s business, “a person’s business” requires the protection or management of another person’s property based on a fiduciary relationship, which goes beyond a mere fiduciary relationship among the parties. If the business is not a person’s own business, but rather a person’s own business, it does not constitute a person who administers another’s business (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10479, Jan. 20, 201). (b) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court is based on the evidence.