The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lease of Q buildings is involved.

Ⅰ. The statements of reasons for appeal, including supplemental reasons for appeal, filed after the lapse of the period for submitting the appellate brief, shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental reasons for appeal.

1. Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The prosecutor indicted the part of the breach of trust related to the lease of Q Q building as a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (outstanding). The court below found the defendant guilty only for the breach of trust on duty and acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (outstanding).

I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “I”) was changed to L on July 28, 2008 for its own interest, including the integration of office around February 2008 and the preparation of company houses.

The term “L” (hereinafter referred to as “L”) decided to purchase Q buildings located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “ Q buildings”) and lease them from L. On the other hand, as to large-amount loans to be borne by L due to the purchase of the above buildings, the increased amount of company operating expenses, maintenance and management costs of the building, etc., I made a decision to preserve the amount corresponding thereto by paying L. The above decision-making by executives, including the Defendant, etc., who had been at the time when I had been a former director, is within the scope of reasonable management judgment in light of all the circumstances at the time of I and L, and it was clearly revealed in the minutes of the board of directors on March 6, 2008, and when comprehensively comparing the interests and losses arising from the purchase and lease of the above buildings with the interests of I and L at the time of the purchase and lease of the above buildings, it cannot be readily concluded that there was any loss on the part of I, while I suffered losses.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not consider all the above circumstances, and further paid I.D.

and without specifying the appropriate amount of rent to be paid, the defendant will be either the J Managing Director under I's intention in breach of trust.