A. Defendant (misunderstanding of the legal principles and sentencing) 1) Since the misunderstanding of the legal principles on the guilty portion provided each of the instant loan supply contracts with the victims for the purpose of securing their obligations such as construction cost, the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the ownership of each of the above loan to the victims as the representative director of the (E) merely lies in his/her business and cannot be called “other’s business” in the crime of breach of trust. At the time, the Defendant did not have any intention in breach of trust.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant’s offering of each of the instant lending contracts to B and C by misunderstanding the legal principles on the non-guilty portion to B and C is expected to transfer the ownership of each of the above lending loans to the Defendant immediately upon completion of each of the above lending loans.

As such, the Defendant’s obligation constitutes “other person’s business” in breach of trust.

2) The sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of the legal principles of Defendant and Prosecutor

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) acknowledged the fact that the Defendant concluded a contract to transfer each of the above lending to the victims for the payment of the respective construction cost for the instant lending to the (State) sewage suppliers, and accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation to perform the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership of each of the above lending to the victims as the representative director of the (State) E at the time of the above contract was conclusive at the time of each of the above contract. As such, the intrinsic content of the Defendant’s obligation to perform the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership of each of the above lending was to protect the victims’ pecuniary interests, not only by its own business but also by protecting the victims’ pecuniary interests, the Defendant is in the position of “a person who administers another’

The judgment that it is reasonable to see the victim G, H, P, R, and T.