The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of payment of the instant loan to R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) by the victim B (hereinafter “victim”) due to erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was a situation in which R could not borrow operating funds from financial institutions due to its poor financial standing, and the victim company did not have good management status due to a decrease in sales and occurrence of net losses.

The Defendant, even with full knowledge of the fact that R had already lost its ability to repay its debts and caused damage to the victim company, paid the instant loan to R without thoroughly examining the following: (a) the size of additional financial resources necessary for R’s normalization; (b) whether the victim company can be provided with its parts in a stable manner due to normalization of R’s financial condition; (c) whether R has the ability to raise additional funds at any other place; and (d) whether it is possible to change its trading company to any other part company; or (e) without taking reasonable measures to recover claims, such as receiving adequate collateral from R.

The defendant should be deemed to have committed an intentional breach of trust against the victim company with respect to the payment of the instant loan to R by the victim company.

Nevertheless, the lower court deemed that the instant loan payment within the scope of reasonable business judgment, and did not recognize the Defendant’s intent of breach of trust. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, community service, 200 hours of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below held that the victim company had significantly deteriorated the financial status of R at the time of paying the instant loan to R, and the defendant also has the financial institution of R.