A All appeals against A and the Defendant B of the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The prosecutor (as to the conjunctive facts charged against Defendant B): According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the lower judgment, it is recognized that Defendant B actively participated in Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the joint principal of the occupational breach of trust against Defendant B is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A 1) In fact, Defendant I’s total amount of unsecured loans amounting to KRW 20 million (20,000,000,000,000) (2013 Highest 1177) is not a provision that restricts unsecured loans, and the final authority on loans is not a crime of breach of trust since the victim Company’s representative director is T&T.

B) Cancellation of K’s security right (2013 Highest 1177) instead of cancelling K’s right to collateral security to recover funds in accordance with the policy for early repayment of loans owed by the victim company, K disposed of part of the money borrowed from a new financial institution, and received a certificate of fairness in monetary consumption lending and lending regarding the remainder of the outstanding amount.

Since the full amount of loans have been recovered, the defendant is not allowed to commit an act or intent violating the duty of occupational breach of trust.

C) Since the Defendant her friened the circumstances that it is difficult for the said victim to be able to be able to be able to do so, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant committed the act of deception as described in the facts charged, as stated in the facts charged.

D) The fact that KRW 40 million was received in breach of trust (2013 senior group 1899) was known by the Defendant from K that he would receive KRW 40 million as a loan honorarium, and the representative director T was said to do so, and thus, the crime of receiving in breach of trust is not established.

E) The Defendant and his family members borrowed the above money in the name of the Defendant with the consent of T representative director (2013 order 3884 case).