All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the court below held that the Defendants’ act as stated in the facts charged cannot be deemed to have caused any new property damage to the victim union, since the Defendants offered funds to the AE by lending the form of purchase and sale through false conspiracy and credit redemption as stated in the facts charged, but this part of the facts charged is not guilty, on the ground that the Defendants’ act as stated in this part of the facts charged, cannot be deemed to have caused any new property damage to the victim union, since there is a risk that the victim union should directly perform the guaranteed obligation to pay the purchase price to the AE, which was guaranteed by the victim union.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal, the prosecutor did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the loss of property in breach

2. As to Defendant A and C’s grounds of appeal

A. After compiling the evidence duly admitted, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the charges on occupational breach of trust on the ground that: (a) the Defendants conspired with each other to intentionally put in the distribution process an intermediate company having a close relationship with them, thereby causing property damage to which the victim union would incur an increase in distribution expenses or loss of expectation profit by minimizing the distribution process; and (b) this cannot be deemed as management judgment within the discretionary scope of the said Defendants.

The judgment below

The records contain reasons.