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

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the assertion is that Defendant A assist the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) in the actual operation and takes charge of the representative director’s business. As such, Defendant A constitutes “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of occupational breach of trust.

On the other hand, around April 2008, I resided in the Gyeonggi-gun J Hotel (hereinafter “the hotel in this case”) and demanded the payment of construction price to Defendant B, and thus, it should be deemed that he commenced lawful possession under the lien starting from that time. Accordingly, Defendant B received a letter of waiver of the right of retention in the name of the victimized Company A prepared by Defendant A and delivered it to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) thereby causing property damage to the victimized Company. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it does not constitute “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of occupational breach of trust, and that even if the Defendants prepared and delivered a letter of waiver of the right of retention in the name of the victimized Company, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants suffered property damage to the victimized Company. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (1) Whether the elements of the judgment meet the above requirements, or whether the representative director took full account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the Defendants did not directly act as the victim’s subsidiary body.

(B) The court below duly adopted and examined the case.