All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. In relation to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendants’ intent of unlawful acquisition and breach of trust can be recognized, and with respect to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the above investigation documents, the Defendant A prepared and used a certificate of stock transfer in the name of the same person without the consent of G and H. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the charge of erroneous determination of facts is erroneous.

2. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the following circumstances admitted by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in addition to the circumstances stated by the court below. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

① With regard to the occupational embezzlement and breach of trust, the circumstances are acknowledged that there was no adequate accounting process on the money between victim D and E, and F, but the amount of the money borrowed from the said company and the Defendants appears to be larger than the amount of the money borrowed from the said Defendants. It is sufficient to deem that the money recorded in the facts charged of this case was remitted for the repayment of the borrowed money. Moreover, the said money is not of a strictly limited nature, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendants had the intent of unlawful acquisition and breach of trust.

② In relation to the occupational embezzlement, the victim filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for a claim for damages due to a tort, but the first instance court dismissed the claim of the victim on the grounds that it cannot be recognized as a tort committed by the Defendants, and the victim appealed against this and is still pending in the appellate trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da33058, Changwon District Court Decision 2016Na5710).3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.