The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant borrowed money under the name of operating expenses of the D Association (hereinafter “Association”) from E. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant actually borrowed money and used it as operating expenses of the Association, but the Defendant and E used it for personal purposes. However, considering that the Defendant borrowed money from E from time to time to time and failed to repay it, the Defendant’s statement was not consistent with the empirical rule, taking into account that the Defendant’s act of abusing the Defendant’s power of representation was natural in light of the fact that the Defendant’s act of abusing the Defendant’s power of representation was not known, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

In the relevant legal breach of trust, the term “when property damage is inflicted” includes not only a case where a real loss is inflicted, but also a case where a risk of actual loss of property has been caused, but also a case where such loss has not been caused by the risk of damage, the breach of trust shall not be established.

Accordingly, in a case where the act of assuming debt obligations under the name of the representative of a corporation has no legal effect, the act of the representative shall not be deemed to cause or threaten to cause any damage to the corporation, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the act of the representative shall not constitute a crime of breach of trust. In a case where the representative director of a corporation, etc. exercises his power of representation for the purpose of promoting his own or a third party's interest, not for the company's interest,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2142, Oct. 24, 2012). Specific judgment of the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.