All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant’s act by the public prosecutor (not guilty part) is a type of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act. If there are justifiable grounds to believe that the Defendant’s act has the right of representation on the part of the other party to the transaction (hereinafter “F, etc.”), D cannot assert that the Defendant’s act is legally null and void on the ground that the Defendant did not have the right of representation on the part of F, etc. or abused the right of representation on the part of F, etc.

The court below determined that F, etc. did not properly confirm the existence or absence of the right of representation of the defendant and there is no justifiable reason to believe that F, etc. has the right of representation. However, demanding F, etc. to verify whether a defendant has the right to conclude a contract and the authenticity of employee seal affixed by the defendant is a judgment that excessively disregards the actual transaction practices and goes against the stability of the transaction.

In the instant case, there is sufficient room to dispute whether F, etc. is established as an expression agent, and whether F, etc. has legitimate grounds, the court below judged that the transaction between F, etc. and F, etc. is legally null and void and the crime of breach of trust is not established solely on the basis of some simple circumstances at the time of transaction, although the court below determined all the circumstances at the time. The

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles as to this part of the facts charged (1) The Defendant is obliged to serve as the director of the finance division of the victim (D only)D (hereinafter “D”) and to not conclude a false supply contract in the name of the victim company without authority.

Nevertheless, the defendant is in breach of his duty and thereby raising funds to be used for personal purposes such as repayment of debt.