1. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. In the first ground of appeal, the intention of breach of trust in the occupational breach of trust is formed through combination of the intent of a person who deals with another's business to inflict property damage on the principal and to take property benefits from him/herself or a third party and the perception that such profit and loss are in breach of his/her duty.

Therefore, in determining whether a manager had an intent to obtain an intent to obtain an intentional breach of trust or an unlawful act in relation to a business judgment, the intent of breach of trust should be recognized only in cases where he/she or a third party knowingly and intentionally committed an act of obtaining property benefits and causing loss to the principal, taking into account the following: (a) the process and motive leading up to the business judgment in question; (b) details of the business subject to determination; (c) economic situation of the company; and (d) probability of incurring loss and acquisition of profit; and (b) the person should not be held liable solely on the ground that a loss incurred to the principal was caused by the occurrence of the loss

However, an act of violating the duty in the crime of breach of trust refers to any act that has a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that ought to be naturally in light of the provisions of the law, the content of the contract, or the principle of good faith, or by performing an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature

Therefore, even if considering all the above circumstances as to managerial judgment of a manager, a manager is expected not to perform or not to perform any act that he/she ought to perform as a matter of course in the specific situation and his/her role under the provisions of the law, the terms of the contract, or the principle of good faith.