All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as misconception of the facts, as the prosecutor 1, G was unable to know the fact that the Defendant abused the power of representation to prepare the instant process deed of lending and borrowing contract amounting to KRW 500 million with the Defendant and E (hereinafter “the process deed of this case”) in which G was the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and the Defendant and E jointly and severally liable with the Defendant, and thus, it could sufficiently be recognized that G was aware of the fact that the Defendant had obtained property benefits equivalent to KRW 500 million by preparing the instant process deed of this case by violating the duty of preservation and proper management of E’s property and thereby having inflicted damage equivalent to the same amount on E, but the lower court, at the time of preparing the process deed of this case, could have known or could have known the Defendant’s abuse of power of representation.

In light of the facts charged of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the charges of this case and sentenced him to the attempted occupational breach of trust. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a duty to preserve and appropriately manage the E’s assets as the representative director of the E in Ansan-gu, from July 15, 2015 to March 30, 2016.

However, although the Defendant did not use the money borrowed for E, he did not borrow the money from G on the ground that he was the borrower of the money borrowed.

The Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million from G on January 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from G, but failed to do so, and instead borrowed KRW 180 million in addition to G’s demand for repayment, the Defendant would become the obligor E and the maximum amount of the claim KRW 500 million.