All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to relevant evidence, such as the statement of the victim (misunderstanding of facts), Defendant A had Defendant D recommend the victim to make an investment in the trust property, Defendant D recommended the victim to make an investment in the trust property, and Defendant D recommended the victim to make an investment in the trust property in accordance with the direction of Defendant A, and accordingly, Defendant A used the money received from the victim for personal purposes, such as stock investment.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled the Defendants not guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant A worked as the director of the branch office C and the director of the branch office C and Defendant D respectively in the future around July 2010. At that time, Defendant A had the intent to use the money for personal purposes, such as investment of stocks, even if having received an investment through Defendant D at that time, so Defendant A had the intent to use it for personal purposes, such as investment of stocks. Therefore, Defendant D requested Defendant D to the effect that “I will guarantee the principal of the investment and pay interest of 8% per annum to 8% per annum.” Defendant D, even if Defendant A received the investment money through Defendant D, was aware that it was intended to use it for personal purposes, such as investment of stocks, not for the trust goods managed by the life insurance company, but for the future, Defendant D had the intent to use it in life insurance for the future, and Defendant D had the intent to use it in life insurance for the future in life insurance for the future of Defendant D’s investment and to offer it in life insurance for the future of the victim.