The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as witness F and G testimony of the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the Defendant could have been found not guilty of occupational breach of trust.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, together with C, was in charge of supplying materials and managing construction sites while operating the interior construction company in the form of a joint business with C.

A. On January 21, 2014, the primary Defendant: (a) requested the president of E, a material supplier, who received KRW 1 million in the name of material prices, to the effect that “3,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the effect that the Defendant shall be appropriated for the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation; (b) thereby making the person who administers another’s business compensates C for property damage equivalent to KRW 3,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

B. On January 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received the transfer of KRW 1,00,000 from E in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu; and (b) ordered the president of E, a material supplier, to F, only 6,50,00 won; and (c) made the remainder 3,50,000 won appropriated for the Defendant’s repayment of the obligation by ordering or not demanding the return of the material; (b) thereby, the person administering another’s business in breach of his/her duty, thereby incurring property damage equivalent to KRW 3,50,00 to C; and (c) obtained the same amount of pecuniary profit.

3. The burden of proof of the facts charged in the criminal trial for the judgment is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be made by the judge.