The judgment below

The guilty part (including the innocent part) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The court below ruled that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) among the facts charged in this case was not sufficient to recognize the scope of party members' judgment

Accordingly, the defendant appealed on the guilty portion on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unreasonable sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of erroneous sentencing and misapprehension of legal principles as to some violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement, which were judged not guilty on the grounds of the reasons. The judgment of the court below excluded the part which

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The borrower of the part of the loan of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) to which the bill is to be issued is S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “S”), and since R has trusted the Defendant’s credit and ability, not only trusted the Defendant’s trust, but also loaned a loan of KRW 5 billion to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that R has committed a crime of breach of trust against Q Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as “S Savings Bank”) in the victim, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ Q Savings Bank”), and even if R is deemed to be established, the Defendant does not constitute a joint principal offense because it did not have any fact of instigating the Plaintiff’s breach of trust or actively participating in the act of breach of trust. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational breach of trust and the establishment of such joint principal offense, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. Even if this part of the charges is found guilty.