In the event that the provisional attachment of Q on the new shopping site is cancelled, it may be deemed that there is a benefit to resume the construction. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the defendant prepared the letter of this case for his own interest or for a third party’s interest.

In each letter, Q, the other party, stated that “The fact that the resolution of the general meeting of the association is required in order to bear the obligation of the victim’s union, was unaware of the fact that the resolution of the general meeting of the association is required, and the provisional seizure was cancelled after the receipt of the letter, etc., was not known that the defendant was an act

In addition, in full view of relevant evidence, the court below acquitted the victim union of the facts charged of this case on March 1, 2006, even though the defendant did not have any legal obligation because he violated his occupational duty as the president of the victim union, and did not have any legal obligation. As such, the court below found that the victim union made a letter of statement of KRW 112,3 million on behalf of Q, signed and sealed it, let Q acquire the claim equivalent to the amount, and caused damages to Q by the victim union.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found that the Defendant, the president of the association, disposed of the fundamental property of the association without a resolution of the general meeting in violation of the articles of association, and committed an abuse of authority for one’s own or a third party’s interest, and knew or could have known Q.