All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant BD

A. As to the part of the sole breach of trust, “a person who administers another’s business” is the subject of the crime of taking property in breach of trust as prescribed by Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act refers to a person who is acknowledged to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in light of the principle of good faith in relation to the internal relationship with another person. It does not necessarily require that the person has a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in relation to the external relationship with a third party. Moreover, it does not require that the business is a comprehensive consignment, and it does not require that the business be a comprehensive consignment. The ground for the occurrence of fiduciary relationship, namely, the provision of statutes, the legal act, customs,

In the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the term "related to the duties" refers to the duties entrusted by a person who administers another's business, but this includes not only the original duties due to the entrustment relationship but also the duties within the scope closely related thereto, and also includes a person who directly or indirectly takes charge of the affairs pertaining to the management as his/her subsidiary organ (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6433, Mar. 24, 2006; 2005Do6433, Mar. 24, 2006; 2000Do 6433, etc.). Further, the term "illegal solicitation" does not necessarily require that the contents of the crime of occupational breach of trust are contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith, and the determination thereof requires a comprehensive consideration of the contents of the solicitation and the amount of compensation related thereto, form, and integrity of transactions, which are legal interests, and it does not require that the solicitation is clearly stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do6868, Dec. 2118, 2008).