A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of occupational embezzlement is acquitted

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the registration of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security at KRW 149,500,000 from KRW 149,50,000 to KRW 90,000 on KRW 301,302 (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) by the JJ of Gangwon-gu as to KRW 149,50,000 on the charge of the instant case was made pursuant to the direction of the National Credit Union Federation of Korea (hereinafter “Korea Credit Union Federation of Korea”) to link the Defendant with KRW 12,00,000 (the name of the Gu, I Credit Union of Korea, and I Credit Union of Korea”) and the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant has no intention to commit a crime of breach of trust.

B) [2014 Highest 1994] The charge of the instant case: (a) the Defendant received a loan from a credit union and delivered all documents necessary for the registration procedure for change of the right to collateral security established on the instant commercial building; (b) however, since the credit union did not complete registration for change in accordance with the instructions of the National Federation of the Credit Union, the Defendant is not guilty of breach of trust; (c) as to Article 3 of the charge of the instant case, as to Article 3 of the charge of the charge of the case, the Defendant was not in a position to engage in loan business when the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 39,00,000 from the credit union around November 2, 201; and (d) since the value of N-owned land of the Gangwon-gu Highest Hawon is not reflected in the utility value in the future,

2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The Defendant’s act on November 25, 201 for the crime of occupational breach of trust by an unfair bidding conducted on November 25, 201 (the fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and unreasonable sentencing) was to reflect the Defendant’s bid price including C’s bonds in the instant bidding price through a resolution of the board of directors based on false reports, and thus, the Defendant’s act was to acquire assets for non-business use.