The judgment below

The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for four years, Defendant A, and D.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendants A, B, and B (hereinafter referred to as “P”) have lent the funds of the P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”) to the management decision that the lending would benefit P at the time of full examination, and have taken appropriate measures to secure the claim. In the event of failure to repay, the Defendants planned to pay for the acquisition price of management right on the part of the Defendants, etc., so there was no intention of intention of breach of trust or of unlawful acquisition.

On February 6, 2009, the embezzlement part of the certificate of deposit (hereinafter referred to as the “ROM”) in the amount of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter referred to as the “ROM”) can borrow KRW 600 million if U manages the said CD. On the other hand, the above CD was delivered to AC and was simply delivered and provided as a security, and the above CD was kept in U.S. with the intention to keep the CD. In addition, as the recovery plan was planned, there was no intention to acquire illegal CD.

The embezzlement of KRW 400 million related to AG (Defendant A, B, C) Defendant A, and B were under circumstances that it was difficult to refuse W’s request for financial assistance, and there was no intention to obtain illegal gains because they were considered to be repaid.

Defendant

C did not participate in KRW 200 million paid to W out of KRW 400 million related to AG.

The embezzlement portion related to the AL (hereinafter “AL”)’s advance payment paid from Defendant A, B, and the source thereof, and the acquisition price of management right that X paid to the Defendants was paid to the Defendants rather than based on the false agreement, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a crime of occupational embezzlement, and it is necessary to review whether the crime of occupational breach of trust is established in accordance with the business judgment rule.

However, the defendants were convictions in the success of the carbon tebron Nitus (hereinafter referred to as "CNT"), and there was a need to execute funds early according to X's explanation.