The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors) D’s G did not allow the Defendant to use a credit card that is a juristic person.

Even if G's permission is granted, as long as corporate credit cards that should be used only for public performance of duties are used for individual purposes, breach of trust is established against the victimized company.

2. Among the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, G statements are made as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged.

However, the court below rejected the credibility of G’s statement on the ground that G could have permitted the Defendant to use the corporate card for the purpose of the repayment of joint and several obligations to D and its Defendant as the representative of the victimized company or the extension of payment period.

In order to recognize the credibility of G’s statement in the appellate court, the lower court’s judgment rejecting the credibility of the statement should be sufficiently and sufficiently acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not appear in such circumstance.

In accordance with the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct examination, the judgment of the court below that rejected the credibility of G's statement cannot be respected.

The remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used a corporate credit card without G consent.

The prosecutor asserts that the crime of breach of trust is established even if G was permitted, since the corporate credit card which should be used only for the public purpose of business is used for the personal purpose.

According to the loan certificate written by G on October 30, 2017, G recognized the damage company's liability for repayment of KRW 53,101,50,00, jointly and severally with G.

A damaged company shall be liable to repay the borrowed amount to the defendant according to the borrowed certificate.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant has a duty to use corporate credit cards only for the performance of official duties.

The facts charged are determined by mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below that there is no proof of crime.