The judgment below

Among them, the part on occupational breach of trust due to the return of the performance deposit shall be reversed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants conspired to act in violation of their occupational duties as stated in each of the facts charged in this case; (b) return KRW 100 million to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”); (c) deliver a total of KRW 2120 million to H as a loan; and (d) repay a total of KRW 908,310,000 to H and joint sales agent for three commercial buildings (hereinafter “three commercial buildings of this case”) to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”); and (d) thereby, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of all the facts charged regarding each of the occupational breach of trust by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A served as a general director of the victim union from November 13, 2006 to August 31, 201, and as a liquidator of the victim union from September 1, 201 to December 31, 201. Defendant B served as a managing director of the victim union from November 2008 to December 31, 201.

On July 15, 2010, when entering into a contract for vicarious sale of commercial buildings with H (the representative director I) around July 15, 2010, the victim association agreed to deposit KRW 100 million with the victim association until H completes the sale of buildings. As such, the Defendants had a duty to keep the victim association from guaranteeing the fulfillment of the obligation of the H’s vicarious sale and the obligation to pay the sale price, without returning the performance bond until H completes the sale of buildings.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to act in violation of the above occupational duties and return the performance bond of KRW 100 million in total to H on July 30, 2010, prior to the completion of sale, and the performance bond of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 to H, thereby having H gain equivalent to the same amount.