The part of conviction (including the part not guilty in the grounds) in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ mistake of facts regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) against the Defendants is deemed to be the Ulsan Metropolitan City J Association (hereinafter “Ulsan Association”) as shown in this part of the charges.

(2) The term “Ulsan Complex” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Ulsan Complex”)

Defendant A did not have purchased 20% of the purchase price with a public offering to compensate for the liability for damages to the Ulsan Association with the purchase price, and Defendant A is a Financial Cooperative of the I Federation (hereinafter “Financial Cooperative”).

In addition to the decision-making authority to execute the budget, the sales price of this case is merely paid out from the reserve fund of the Financial Cooperative in accordance with the resolution of the Steering Committee of the Financial Cooperative, and thus, Defendant A cannot be the subject of breach of trust. Accordingly, Defendant B is not the subject of breach of trust. Accordingly, Defendant B’s participation in the auction process would not constitute a crime of breach of trust. 2) The way of exercising the preferential purchase right of the co-owners was conducted through the internal decision-making of the Financial Cooperative. In the auction of this case, the O made a bid and the I Federation (hereinafter “Federation”) exercised the preferential purchase right of the co-owners. There is no evidence that the Defendants attempted to receive a successful bid with a much higher price than the market price of the Ulsan Association, and there was no intention to commit a breach of trust or to obtain an unlawful acquisition from the Defendants.

3. Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes a breach of trust, the amount of damage should be deemed the difference between the successful bidder and the 20% equity of the Ulsan Association, rather than the difference between the successful bidder and the appraisal price, but the difference between the market price and the 20% equity of the Ulsan Association. However, the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have specified the amount of damage by failing to submit evidence on the market