The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the gist of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant refused to cooperate in the procedure for changing the nominal owner in breach of his/her duties while delegated by the victim and managing the Victim B for the victim; and (b) the Defendant committed occupational breach of trust against the victim.

2. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant was a person in charge of the business affairs of G and C of the Defendant Company with delegation from the victim was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. A. There is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

Since the crime of breach of trust is established by a person who administers another's business in violation of his/her duty to obtain pecuniary benefits and thereby inflict damage on another person who is the subject of the business, the subject of the crime must be in the position

Here, “a person who administers another’s business” is required to protect or manage another’s property on the basis of a fiduciary relationship between the parties, beyond a mere fiduciary relationship duty. If the business is not a business of another person but a person’s own business, the person does not constitute a person who administers another’s business, even though the principal substance of the relationship is beneficial to the other person and is obliged to manage that business.

Supreme Court Decision 75Do2245 Decided May 11, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 86Do2490 Decided April 28, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do172 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.