All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

With respect to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (guilty portion in the judgment of the court), a contract for acquisition of the right of purchase between a stock company B (name change to C on March 25, 201, hereinafter referred to as "B") and Emera (hereinafter referred to as "E") (hereinafter referred to as "Emera") shall be limited to the "sale Authority" after the import of minerals, and B entered into a separate exclusive sales contract for mineral import between E (hereinafter referred to as "E") and paid the business guarantee money.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the representative director of B, did not pay the business bonds worth KRW 3 billion to E (Korea).

It cannot be said that the Defendant conspired to commit the act of breach of trust in D merely because he knew that part of 3 billion won paid to E (Korea) as business guarantee money was used as capital increase with D.

In order to overcome serious management difficulties experienced by B, the Defendant paid business bonds while promoting mineral distribution business in accordance with D's proposal, and did not have any intention in breach of trust.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which found guilty of this part of the charges.

As stated in this part of the facts charged, with respect to the breach of trust due to advance payment, the amount that B paid as advance payment to E (Korea) constitutes advance payment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending this as a practical loan.

Although the lower court determined that the crime of breach of trust is established against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not prepare a goods supply contract for advance payment and did not make a resolution by the board of directors, the lower court’s determination is erroneous since it is not necessary to prepare a goods supply contract for advance payment or

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is guilty.