All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) 1 of the lower judgment, when Defendant paid 25 million won to H with respect to the 2014 senior order 346 case, the act of arbitrarily taking the victim E as a joint guarantor with respect to the above obligation constitutes an abuse of power of representation, and thus, the said act of joint and several sureties is null and void, and thus, the crime of breach of trust is not established.

2) As to the case 2014 High Order 935 decided in the lower judgment, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim J as stated in the lower judgment.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, and fraud against the victim D among the facts charged by the prosecutor, 2014 high-level 935) the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant was found to have obtained pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 386 million by deceiving the victim D, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion: (a) Where the representative of the company of the 2014 High Order 346 case abused his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party’s interest, regardless of the company’s profit; and (b) where the other party was unaware or was unable to know, the representative abused his/her authority;

Even if the company suffered property damage in effect.

As such, the crime of breach of trust is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3782, Jun. 28, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health care provider: (a) acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the following circumstances, namely, the content of H’s police statement, either knew or could have known that H

It is difficult to see that H actually filed an agreement claim against the victim E, etc., and H is against the first victim company, the defendant, and the J.