The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was that the Defendant was working at the “F” oral store operated by the victim E on the first floor of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant consented from the victim on May 2012 to deliver the Defendant’s blood to the Defendant’s parents and then subsequently deducted the amount from the Defendant’s pay.

On May 16, 2012, the Defendant, at the above oral store around 17:00, delivered the Defendant’s parents a 100,000 scam, which is equivalent to the market price of KRW 100,00,00, to the Defendant’s parents. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the victim of the fact, thereby causing the Defendant to have the Defendant deduct the oral payment from the payment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not attend the same day because the victim did not know of the fact of sending signals, thereby in violation of the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above oral payment by hiding the fact of delivery to the victim and evading the obligation to pay the price, and caused property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. The judgment of the crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business acquires property benefits through breach of one's duty and causes damage to another person who is the principal agent of the business. Thus, the principal agent of the crime must be the person who administers another's business. Here, "the person who administers another's business" refers to a case where the principal agent has a duty to protect or manage another's property based on bilateral trust relationship. Thus, if the business is not another person's business but for one's own business, it cannot be viewed as a person who administers another's business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2490, Apr. 28, 1987). Meanwhile, one party's property right, such as sale, is transferred to another person.