The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the time when the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation to E was December 31, 2007, and otherwise asserted that the Defendant’s date of exemption from obligation was May 17, 2007 when the Defendant received KRW 5.2 million from E, and the statute of limitations expired on the premise that the statute of limitations expired.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is not accepted because a final and conclusive judgment was rendered on the act of voluntary use of the above money in relation to the commercial concurrence or universal crimes with this case. (2) The defendant's duty to collect claims from E in relation to the victim and return the claims to the victim, and therefore, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is not accepted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of breach of trust, or by exceeding the existence of the statute of limitations or final and conclusive judgment, which is the grounds of acquittal, contrary to what is alleged

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.