The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The victim K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”)

(1) The defendant is a single shareholder and is an authorized company established for the purpose of subsidizing business funds to the related companies in fact.

2) The Defendant, as an actual manager of the victim company, provided funds borrowed by the victim company from related companies in the form of loans, and did not have the intent to commit a breach of trust.

3) Even if the instant loan constitutes a violation of the duties, the victim shall deposit the loan to the victim company and actually control the relevant company.

4) Nevertheless, the court below found the victim company to be the victim of the violation of the duty and found the victim guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted that the judgment of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of fact is identical to the assertion of mistake of fact, etc., and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination.

The following circumstances revealed by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim company was established for loan business on or around March 5, 2007 and was established with a certain organization and was engaged in substantial business activities such as financing of funds from savings banks, related companies, etc. and bearing interest expenses, and obtaining interest income through general credit loans, real estate mortgage loans, sales contract deposit loans, etc., are deemed to have been performed as part of its business activities, and there is no ability to control and manage the property in its name, and conduct business activities independently.