beta
Text
1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, B, C, and E shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A and B shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Examining the following circumstances in light of the Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding WP loan-related breach of trust (Defendant E, A, B(1) (hereinafter “X”), the lending of the facts constituting the crime in this part of the judgment below (hereinafter “the instant lending”) to X (hereinafter “X”) of WW Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”) was lawful according to the management judgment. Thus, the above Defendants did not have an intention to commit a breach of trust.
(A) The lower court acknowledged the crime of breach of trust on the grounds that W was in capital erosion at the time of the instant loan, and X did not have adequate collateral assets, but it was limited to the characteristics of real estate PF business.
(B) W was able to use 20 billion won as its own funds collected after being recognized as its initial project cost out of the PF loans, and there was no need to use the said own funds for an urban development project.
(C) The Pyeongtaek Urban Development Project was assessed to have adequate feasibility from various financial institutions, and WW was also subject to sufficient examination.
(D) The instant loan was lawfully made through a monetary loan agreement and a resolution of the board of directors. As continuous loan and repayment were made between W and X, the balance of the instant loan has been reduced continuously, and the accounting of the loan was conducted.
(2) Defendant A and B did not make a leading decision on the instant lending, and Defendant A merely knew that Defendant E’s provisional revenues were invested in X, and there was no intention of breach of trust.
(B) Defendant B was not a W director, and did not participate in the decision-making on the instant loan, and merely was in charge of W’s fund management in relation to the Kimpo-m Development Project, and there was a public contest with Defendant E and A.