The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing

A. In order to prevent confusion of the social welfare foundation of this case without undergoing due process of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the expressions that the court below reduced are used as they are.

Although it is null and void to have the obligor bear the obligation, it constitutes a breach of trust since the pertinent appellate court caused the damage to the social welfare foundation of this case in response to the conciliation in civil procedure.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the facts.

B. If the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the sentencing should be determined again.

[Inasmuch as the grounds for appeal are deemed to be the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below is deemed to include the purport that “the sentence of a fine of one million won (one million won) as to the conviction portion in the original trial is too unhued and unreasonable.”

A. The lower court, based on the legal doctrine that a juristic act concluded by a person who intends to take over an existing incorporated foundation for the business of the incorporated foundation after taking over belongs to the incorporated foundation after taking over, concluded that the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of breach of trust solely on the ground that the Defendant was liable for the charge of the crime of breach of trust on the ground that: (a) the developments leading up to acquiring the land and buildings of J or the details of use after acquiring the land and buildings correspond to the purpose of the instant social welfare foundation; and (b) the Defendant appears to have borrowed money from L to be used

Furthermore, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s response to the conciliation constitutes a breach of duty against the instant social welfare foundation, or that he/she responded to the conciliation with the Defendant’s intent of breach of trust in light of the nature of the conciliation of civil cases or the process of the relevant civil litigation

In light of the record, the evidence of this case is closely examined.