All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant 1’s accusation against P and S does not constitute an accusation on the ground that there was a fact or objective circumstance to believe that the Defendant was a fact, or that there was an objective circumstance to believe that it was a fact.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

① With respect to the complaint of defraudation of KRW 5 billion, there are a number of evidence and circumstances that correspond to the fact that the defendant did not invest KRW 5 billion in the instant case, and there is no credibility in the P and S’s statement claiming that the defendant invested the said money. In light of the above, the facts of the defendant’s complaint are true.

② With respect to the complaint by defraudation of KRW 1 billion, the Defendant’s statement that the details of the Defendant’s complaint are false is difficult to believe in light of the relevant circumstances; the Defendant did not have any reason to pay management premium to J; and the agreement written with J cannot be deemed as evidence that the said money was paid as a consideration for management premium; and the Defendant’s statement that the details of the Defendant’s complaint are false is proved false.

shall not be deemed to exist.

③ In relation to the accusation of 500 million won, the Defendant’s accusation was proven false in light of the following: (a) the statement by P and S, which corresponds to the facts charged, is difficult to believe in light of the relevant circumstances; (b) the agreement on transfer of shares prepared by S; and (c) the waiver of the

shall not be deemed to exist.

④ In relation to the complaint of occupational breach of trust of KRW 11 million, such as lease deposit, etc., T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”) entered into a lease agreement with W.

Although it is not possible to see that S paid money in the name of the lease deposit to W constitutes an occupational breach of trust, it constitutes a breach of trust, and thus, it cannot be said that the details of the Defendant’s complaint are false.

another.