The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, without going through the resolution of the general meeting of the representatives of the victims' clans, arbitrarily leases the land of this case to E and delivers 2.8 million won to F with the name of rent, thereby causing damage to the victim's clans, and thus, the defendant is sufficiently recognized as the crime of occupational breach of trust. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, from May 2009 to March 5, 201, worked as a business director at the “C branch of the instant clan” as the victim, and was engaged in the business affairs of the said clan.

According to the rules of the above clan, the lease of the land owned by the clan shall be subject to a resolution of the general meeting of representatives.

On January 25, 2011, the Defendant violated the occupational duty to be resolved by the general meeting of the representatives of the above clans in the area of the Soyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the Defendant leased 400,006 square meters to E without going through the resolution of the general meeting of the representatives, and the Defendant did not deposit it with the clan but did not receive 2,80,000 won as rent from the above E, and made it difficult to recover it by giving 2.8 million won to the F who buried the above land to the members who buried it.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired F from F the pecuniary advantage equivalent to 2.8 million won of rent, and the victim suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount.

나. 원심의 판단 원심은, 검사 제출 증거에 의하면 종중 총회의 의결을 거친 바 없이 피고인이 이 사건 토지의 임대 및 복토 작업을 추진한 사실은 인정되나, 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인은 2010. 1. 17. 무렵 이 사건 토지(H)와 I 토지에 관하여 기존 임차인(J)의 도조(賭租) 미납 문제 및 복토 문제와 관련하여, 기존 임대차계약을 해지한 후 1년치 도조...