All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of issuing a promissory note in the name of the victimized company in order to secure his/her personal obligation is an abuse of the power of representation, and the other party AX knew of such an act. Thus, the promissory note is null and void against the victimized company.

Therefore, Defendant’s issuance of promissory notes does not constitute a breach of trust against the victimized company.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the attempted occupational breach of trust as a result of the reduction of occupational breach of trust is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) Improper sentencing of the lower court (each of the crimes of paragraphs 1 through 3, 5, and 9 as indicated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, each of the crimes of paragraphs 4 and 6-8 as indicated in the lower judgment, and imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim filed by the victimized company against AX, the counter-party to the issuance of a promissory note, misunderstanding the facts of the prosecutor (1) (A) occupational breach of trust (not guilty part of the reasoning) that caused the risk of property damage to the victimized company due to the Defendant’s act of issuing a promissory note in the name of the victimized company, with consideration of the fact that the issuance of a promissory note and a certificate of promissory note is

As such, it should be viewed that the occupational breach of trust has reached the end of the occupational breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of occupational breach of trust, and found the Defendant guilty of only attempted occupational breach of trust as a reduced fact.

(B) The former representative of CF, who received a subcontract for the second CD-2 works, paid all equipment usage fees or construction cost.

The defendant is obligated to pay the user fee or the cost of construction to the victims, as the CE, operated by the defendant, performs the remaining works by subcontracting the second CDs.

b) the Commission;