The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of breach of trust is established where a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary benefits by an act in violation of one’s duty and causes damage to another person, who is the principal agent of the business (Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act). Here, the term “other person’s business” means a case where the whole or part of another person’s business concerning the management of another person’s property is performed for the sake of preserving another person’s property and where the essential substance of the two parties’ relationship is necessary to protect and manage another person’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship among them beyond a mere obligation under a contractual relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do10479, Jan. 20, 201; 201Do3482, Feb. 27, 2014). However, the lower court determined that the act in question constitutes an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship or an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the other person for the sole purpose of protecting and managing another person’s pecuniary interests (see, 2010.

A. The Defendant and the victim operate a new aggregate building project, which is an urban living housing, for a large number of lands other than Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as well as a new project (hereinafter “instant project”).