All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The existence of the resolution of the general assembly or the board of directors on the part of Article 1 of the instant facts charged does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust or the crime of embezzlement.

At the time, the incidental operator of the Association reached 7 billion won and it was difficult to compile the budget with the association funds. In such a situation, the Defendants’ payment of cash or merchandise coupons to representatives, officers and employees who are not all members of the Association violates the duty to represent the interests of the Association as a whole.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Paragraph (b) of Section 1 of the facts charged of the instant case was constructed with special membership fees or general membership fees from the total transport employees in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and a certain amount of the rent accrued from the transport center is being paid every year in the form of subsidies to be used for the purpose of training of transport employees, etc., such subsidies shall be used for the benefit of the entire members of the Association of this case.

Therefore, if the Defendants used the subsidies only for some members, they are in violation of their duties and the Defendants’ intent of unlawful acquisition is also sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

C. The use of K company in scrapping of the part AG truck of Article 1-C of the facts charged of the instant case is related to the entire members of the instant association. As such, the promotional expenses also should be organized as the revenue of the instant association and used for the whole members. Even if the resolution of the board of directors was made, it constitutes an act in violation of the Defendants’ duties to use it for a minority officer or employee.

In addition, there is little possibility that it would be rejected by the Board of Governors or the General Assembly of Representatives with respect to agenda items that grant benefits to directors or delegates.