The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act provides that a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to do so by acting in violation of his/her duty, thereby causing loss to the principal. Article 359 of the Criminal Act provides that an attempted crime shall be punished.

As such, the Criminal Act provides that a person who administers another’s business shall engage in an act in violation of his/her duty and that an actor or a third party shall inflict damage on the principal by acquiring pecuniary advantage from such act. Thus, the Criminal Act provides that a person who administers another’s business shall commit an act in violation of his/her duty, i.e., breach of one’s duty, and thereby, when he/she commences an act in violation of one’s duty with awareness or intent to inflict damage on the principal by acquiring his/her own or a third party’s pecuniary advantage, it refers to the period from which he/she or the third party acquired pecuniary advantage to the principal

In the past, the Supreme Court held that in the crime of breach of trust, the term "when the loss was inflicted on the principal" refers to the reduction of property value, which includes not only the case of causing property loss but also the case of causing the risk of actual damage, and that the amount of damage has not been clearly determined.

Even if the establishment of the crime of breach of trust has been consistently interpreted as not affecting the establishment of the crime of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Do1366, Nov. 13, 197; 79Do2637, Sept. 9, 1980; 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987; 90Do1702, Oct. 16, 1990; 95Do531, May 30, 1997). In addition, the existence of property damage should be understood from an economic point of view, not from a legal judgment in relation to the former property condition of the principal.