The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, even if the defendant is suspected of guilty, it cannot be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Furthermore, the determination of the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On February 1, 200, the first instance court accepted the part of the charge of violation of the Agricultural Cooperative Act, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as well as the judgment of the prosecutor’s determination that it constitutes “agricultural Cooperative” and “Seoul”)’s purchase and sale of goods under the same reasoning.

B. As to the facts charged of occupational breach of trust, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, is difficult to view that the Defendants did not take measures to preserve claims, such as the provision of personal and material security from G while engaging in transactions based on the consignment contract for livestock products. Furthermore, the Defendants had the intent to breach of trust with respect to the Defendants.

It is difficult to see even

Recognizing these facts, the prosecutor's appeal concerning mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is rejected, and this part is not accepted.