The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is that the Defendant, after cutting off and processing the refund bar, which is an imported cargo, supplied to D & D Co., Ltd., and paid the L/C price to the injured bank. In order to dispose of imported cargo in any other way, the Defendant must obtain the consent of the injured bank. Such obligation constitutes “other person’s business” to protect and manage property of the injured bank.

However, in violation of this duty, the Defendant committed a crime of breach of trust as it has infringed on the rights of the victim bank by disposing of the imported cargo to E, a separate corporation established by the Defendant without undergoing a cutting-off process after obtaining a letter of guarantee from the victim bank.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The court below determined based on the records as follows. ① The L/C is classified into the L/C (S right L/C) and the L/C (Us/C) based on whether the L/C is a bill of exchange or a bill of exchange issued under the L/C is a bill of exchange. All of the L/C at issue in this case is the L/C (the L/C payment of the L/C price after the lapse of a certain period stipulated in the L/C may be disposed of after receiving the L/C from the person who requested the issuance of the L/C first after receiving the imported freight through the shipment documents received. ② The L/C company operated by the Defendant entered into a foreign exchange transaction agreement with the victim around May 25, 2012. Of them, Article 13 Section 2 of the L/C permits the importer to sell the imported freight to the importer prior to the settlement of the L/C price).