The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant provided the victim E Co., Ltd. with the same effect.

In the name of another company below, the term “stock company” is omitted.

It is recognized that a person who has been in charge of oil sales business imported in E while serving as the deputy head of the oil business headquarters, etc. was aware that the payment guarantee issued by H was not issued normally from the beginning.

The defendant was aware that he violated his duties with respect to the commencement of credit transactions with H and increase of credit limit.

According to the above, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. (i) The lower court determined as follows, whether the Defendant recognized the defect in the payment guarantee certificate.

Review of records reveals the following circumstances, etc.

① The Defendant, F, etc. verified the amount guaranteed by the payment guarantee, the obligor, and the guarantor, and verified the certificate of personal seal impression and the stamp image of the payment guarantee after receiving the payment guarantee from R at the K Branch Office of a new bank.

M has thoroughly verified the payment guarantee in the branch office, and the F stated that there is a little question about the scope of the guaranteed obligation of the payment guarantee to R.

② M made a statement to the effect that, by allowing a branch office that is an issuer to issue a payment guarantee directly, M intended to have a person in charge of E believe that the payment guarantee is true.

G was stated in the branch office of G that it explained the fact that the E would normally be issued to the person in charge.

(3) The defendant, F, etc. are issued with a payment guarantee certificate ten times and each time M and G as the debtor in a branch office are located concurrently.