As it is becoming a general and universal trend for corporate groups to conduct business as a single economic community, there is a need to recognize corporate groups as a unit in respect to their management and economic realities. The Supreme Court Judgment limited the establishment of occupational breach of trust for supporting acts among affiliated companies within a corporate group by proposing a new standard that considers the common interests of the group at the time of deliberating the occupational breach of trust. The judgment is meaningful in that, while it acknowledges a separate, independent corporate personality of individual companies belonging to a corporate group, it denied the establishment of occupational breach of trust for supporting acts that were made within the discretionary scope of reasonable business judgment in respect of the management reality of the corporate group. In the event that the new criteria to be considered in the determination of the intent in breach of trust is fulfilled, the judgment does not acknowledge the intent in breach of trust. as it is an act within the discretionary scope of reasonable business judgment. However, in the sense that the judgment acknowledges the act within the discretionary scope of reasonable business judgment as a breach of duty and the fact that it solely relies on the determination of ambiguous and unclear intent in breach of trust to judge whether a crime is committed bring the limitations in lack of legal consistency and predictability. As the new standard proposed by the judgment is an objective factor, it is reasonable to judge it at the stage of breach of duty, not the intent in breach of trust. Moreover, our social reality includes a large number of shareholders and creditors in corporate groups that consist of a mix of publicly traded companies and unlisted companies and even though the family of the head with management rights are only minority shareholders, there are cases in which support for the pursuit of private interests is instructed in the name of promoting common interests of corporate groups. It is necessary to fully consider the governance structure and characteristics of Korean corporate groups when applying the criteria proposed by the judgment to a specific case in the future. This paper examined the criteria presented by the judgment and specifically delved into how they were applied for each case.