2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal. The court below examined the defendant's career acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined, the background of the defendant's entry into D, the period of service and the work details, the foreign exchange transaction agreement concluded between D and Busan Bank, the payment guarantee transaction agreement and the terms of the transfer contract concluded between D and Busan Bank, and the agreement on the provision of security for imported fishery products where the agreement on the establishment of a letter of credit is concluded between D and the importer of fishery products and the financial institution. Thus, the importer of fishery products is unable to dispose of imported fishery products without the consent of the issuing bank of the letter of credit until the settlement of the letter of credit obligation. Such circumstance seems to have been well known if the person in charge of the business of fishery products in the importing company of fishery products is the person in charge of the business of fishery products, the defendant's withdrawal from D on November 30, 2009, and the situation and role after retirement, as shown in the judgment of the court below, as a whole, the crime of breach of trust in this case is recognized.

According to the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and in particular C/N consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “the defendant was aware that the fishery products of this case were offered as security to Busan Bank.” However, the defendant was first patroler on November 2009.