The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant created the right to collateral security on the instant real estate as security for his/her own obligation, the person who actually manages each of the instant real estate is deemed the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant constitutes a person who administers another’s business in breach of trust

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, the court below held that each of the real estate in this case is owned by Defendant E, and Defendant E can be acknowledged that each of the real estate in this case was sold to the victim as E’s agent, and the above facts of recognition are as follows: (i) Defendant was entrusted with all of the rights, such as sale and purchase of each of the real estate in this case from E on May 4, 2012, but on behalf of the victim on May 4, 2013, Defendant received five million won as contract deposit from the victim on May 6, 2013, upon entering into a sales contract for each of the real estate in this case on behalf of the victim and receiving five million won as contract deposit from the victim on May 6, 2013, E was also entrusted with the authority to enter into the sales contract for the real estate in this case on May 6, 2013, and it appears that E was also entitled to participate in the sales contract in each of the real estate in this case’s account.

The victim also made a statement to the effect that “........”