The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains property benefits by an unlawful act of breach of duty and causes damage to another person who is the subject of the business, so the subject of the crime must be the status of administering another's business

In order to be recognized as “management of another person’s business, it should be limited to cases where all or part of the business regarding the management of another person’s property is performed on behalf of another person and cooperate in preserving another person’s property. The essential contents of the relationship between the two parties are to protect or manage another person’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship among them beyond the simple contractual obligation. If the business is not one of the other party’s business, and if the business is not one of the other party’s business, it does not constitute a person who administers another’s business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do11722, Feb. 26, 2009; 2008Do10479, Jan. 20, 201; 2008Do10479, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and duly admitted evidence, the Korea Securities and Exchange Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) established and enforced the Act, 2005.