The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant 1’s lending KRW 130 million to J (hereinafter “J”) as the actual operator of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), was based on the management judgment, but the lower court which found the above lending act as an act of occupational breach of trust and found the guilty guilty of the above lending act as an act of occupational breach of trust, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on management judgment, etc., or by misapprehending the facts concerning the crime of occupational breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (the Defendant stated the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal to the same purport

The defendant's defense counsel submitted a statement of reasons for appeal on November 15, 2016 without submitting the attorney appointment system. Since the defendant's defense counsel appointment guidance was submitted on November 17, 2016, the reason for appeal was not timely filed, and the reason for appeal is not valid as a legitimate reason for appeal, but the above reasons for appeal are not valid as a legitimate reason for appeal, and the defendant's above reasons for appeal are determined to the extent it supplements the reasons for appeal. 2) The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) which is unfair for sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the judgment of the court below 1) The Defendant established and operated the Victim F for Real Estate Development and Sale from November 4, 2013 to November 4, 2013, and B served as the F’s representative director from July 2, 2014.

F developed the forests and fields in the petition Gu G, H, and I at the Cheongju-si, and decided to sell all the houses to the parties after selling them, and received approximately KRW 1.2 billion from both parties for the sale price.

The Defendant, as the actual operator of F, shall not interfere with the recovery of the claim in the future in a reasonable and reasonable manner, such as being provided with sufficient security, if the sales price kept as the representative director of F, is lent to another person.