The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the purport of the grounds for appeal - misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles - lending KRW 900 million to the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and the fact that the Defendant, the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), did not go through the resolution of the E board of directors in the course of lending funds, and did not take measures to recover the claims to E, the Defendant, who lent KRW 900 million to I, should be deemed to have “the intention of breach of trust”, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. Determination

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows. ① The defendant comprehensively examined future business prospects, technical skills, etc. to create new sources of profit and stabilize profit with H and G, and then established 100 million won capital, and promote the development and sales business of the traw traw traw traw traw traw (straw traw traw traw traws attached between engines and engine engines in order to prevent the vibration generated from automobile engines from being transmitted to engine engines, such as exhaust equipment, etc.). It seems that there is a need to secure additional funds for the technical development, operation, management, etc. of the traw traw 100 million won, ② The traw 100 million won was confirmed by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation on March 7, 2012 as a venture business in accordance with the special measures for the promotion of venture businesses, ③ the traw 100 million won was supported by the traw 200 billion won, which is the technical business of the above company.