A. Defendant A was unaware of the defective maintenance of the bus, and there was no warning to operate the defective bus, and Defendant A merely ordered employees to use the bus well at all times.

B. Defendant A merely distributed profits to himself and shareholders through the resolution of distribution of profits at the general meeting of shareholders of the instant company. Thus, Defendant A did not have the intention of breach of trust.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of a violation of the Road Traffic Act by deeming that the fact that Defendant A already instructed the operation of a defective bus for the maintenance of a bus could not be recognized, and thus, found Defendant A guilty of a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, which was prosecuted around, on the other hand, by recognizing that Defendant A aided and abetted the operation of a defective bus for the maintenance of a bus by means of not causing repair of the bus insofar as it is not a defect to the extent that the operation of the bus is impossible.

The Defendant’s ground for appeal on this part seems to be a dispute over the primary facts charged with which the verdict of innocence was already rendered, and even if it were to the purport of comprehensively disputing the conjunctive facts charged with conviction, the Defendants voluntarily acknowledged that “if Defendant A is able to operate a bus as much as possible and there is time to allow the vehicle to be repaired after driving, the vehicle shall be repaired.” The purport of the Defendants’ assertion itself corresponds to the conjunctive facts charged.

B. According to the testimony of H by the witness of the lower court, it seems that it was not clear that the bus article or the maintenance manager reported the maintenance requirements to the Defendant A, even though the system was not clear.