Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B: The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the provisional registration of this case was valid.

Since the Defendant did not directly experience the completion of the provisional registration of this case, and recognized that it was a false provisional registration completed for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution as notified by A, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of having erred by misapprehending the fact.

B. The prosecutor 1) In the civil lawsuit brought by Defendant B against the victim company, the act of falling on behalf of the victim company G (hereinafter “victim company”) is in violation of the duty to faithfully manage and preserve the property of the victim company, and committed in collusion with Defendant B, who was the auditor of the victim company, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate judicial intent of the victim company. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the court which was deceiving by Defendant A’s deception was a dispositive act of the victim company’s property based on mistake.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended sentence, 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, the Defendant, despite being aware that the provisional registration of this case, which was completed in order to secure the Defendant’s loan obligation to the victim company, was valid, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration against the victim company in collusion with A, and revoked the provisional registration upon receiving the judgment.

Since it is reasonable to see that the criminal intent of occupational breach of trust is recognized.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and it is about the criminal intent of occupational breach of trust.