The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around May 16, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from the Victim C to repay the principal and interest of KRW 170 million within three months, and in order to secure this, the Defendant prepared a sales contract stating that he/she sells “three-eight percent of the E forest in the time of harmony” (hereinafter “instant share”) owned by the Defendant under the name of D to the victim.

However, the Defendant violated the duty to cooperate with the victim in preserving property by completing the registration of ownership of the instant shares to the victim. On August 31, 2012, the Defendant sold the instant shares to F in the amount of KRW 315 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 70 million, and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. Determination:

A. The crime of breach of trust in law 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. Thus, the subject of the crime must have the status of administering another’s business.

In order to be recognized as “management of another’s business,” it should be limited to cases where the whole or part of another’s business concerning the management of another’s property is performed on behalf of another person or where cooperation is made in preserving another’s property, and the essential contents of the relationship between the two parties are required to protect or manage another’s property based on a trust relationship among them, which goes beyond a mere obligation under the relationship of claims. If the business is not a business of another person but a person’s own business, the business is beneficial to the other person and bears the obligation to handle it against the other person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3482, Feb. 27, 2014). Therefore, in case of an accord-payment promise for the security of claims,