The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On October 18, 201, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to dismiss an application for adjudication (hereinafter “decision to dismiss the application for adjudication of this case”) as the Seoul High Court 201 early 2595 on the gist of the grounds for appeal (hereinafter “decision to dismiss the application for adjudication of this case”), and on October 20, 201, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision to dismiss the application for adjudication of this case (hereinafter “instant civil judgment”).

In accordance with the civil judgment of this case, since the facts of the occurrence of damage and the amount of damage caused by the criminal act of this case can be specified, the judgment of this case constitutes "the case where other important evidence is discovered" after Article 262 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the statement of K, the manager of the D management body, was submitted as evidence.

Therefore, the procedure of the instant indictment does not violate the provisions of the law (the latter part of Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

And according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant's crime of occupational breach of trust is fully recognized.

2. The lower court determined that the instant case was prosecuted in violation of the latter part of Article 262(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, although other important evidence was not discovered, and thus dismissed the instant public prosecution.

In a thorough examination of the reasoning of the judgment below's rejection of prosecution and the evidence of this case, ① The civil judgment of this case (Evidence 1, 21) constitutes other important evidence found after the dismissal of the application for adjudication of this case, since the judgment of this case was based on the above evidence, especially the evidence which was already submitted prior to the dismissal of the application for adjudication of this case (Records 1, 1, 21, 1, 2009), which was prepared prior to July 1, 2009, and the meaning and validity of the withdrawal of the voluntary payment of wages (Evidence 1, 85, 1, 209) and the above withdrawal of the voluntary payment of wages.