The judgment of the court below (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for one year, respectively.

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the Defendants violated their duties as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below and let I gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 260,00,00,00 and the victim suffered damage to the same amount of the victim constitutes 60,770,200,000, which is more than KRW 199,229,80,000 on the ground that there is no proof of crime, and found the Defendants guilty of the crime of occupational breach of trust as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below did not separately sentence the Defendants and the public prosecutor appealed only for the guilty portion of

However, an appeal against a part of a single offense is included in the scope of the appellate court’s judgment, since the part of the acquittal is included in the part of the single offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do500, Feb. 9, 2001). The scope of the appellate court’s judgment includes the part of the acquittal of reasons as

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Each content of the right to collateral security against mistake of facts is as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The withdrawal of the application for establishment registration and the prior application for establishment registration of J-mortgage was made according to the consent of the victim, so Defendant A did not have the intention of breach of trust.

Even if Defendant A’s act constitutes occupational breach of trust, the amount of damage 199,229,800 won recognized by the lower court is unfairly calculated.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in the period of ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant B 1 withdraws an application for registration of establishment of a right to collateral security from a victim of mistake of facts and applied for priority in the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security was made with the prior consent of the victim.