The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant, the representative director of the victim company, who is the victim company of mistake of facts, used the total amount of money borrowed from the victim company as the debtor to acquire new shares for the purpose of the victim company's interest, such as overdue rent of the victim company, repayment of credit debts, and employee pay. The defendant and the F provided real estate owned by each party as security at the time of the above loan, and paid all the money borrowed from the victim company. Thus, the defendant's act committed property damage to the victim company.

shall not be deemed to have any risk or risk to occur.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of a mistake of facts, the term “when a property damage was inflicted” includes not only a case where a real damage was inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been inflicted. The judgment of whether a property damage was inflicted or not should be understood from an economic point of view without being based on legal judgment in relation to the property status of the principal, and as long as the risk of damage was caused, the damage

It does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust.

(2) The Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7878 Decided March 26, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7878, Mar. 26, 2004). However, inasmuch as the crime of occupational breach of trust causes property damage to the principal’s property status, it means that the latter causes property loss, i.e