The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant recognized that his act was in violation of the duty as the representative director of the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) in lending money to G without being provided any security as stated in the facts charged, and sufficiently recognized that there was an intention of breach of trust in order to inflict damages on the instant company and obtain profits from G, a third party, by violating the duty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the instant facts charged is a person who was the representative director of the instant company at Jeju from April 3, 2012 to June 20, 2014, and F, from August 6, 2011 to November 11, 2014, who was delegated by the Defendant and was in charge of the instant company’s business.

Defendant and F were known to the general public.

G at the request of G, “a request for the lending of business funds” was made on March 27, 2013, and around 4 lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”) such as H land and I, J, K, and K, Jeju, the only property of the instant company, the creditor of which set up a right to collateral security of KRW 585 million in the creditor’s name, and borrowed KRW 450 million from L to borrow it for the lending of KRW 450 million.

In the event that the Defendant and F lend the company’s funds to another person, the instant company, the victim of which was provided with sufficient security from the other person, has an occupational duty to safely recover the loan, and even if there is no security from G, the Defendant and F extended the loan amount of KRW 450 million to G for a year on March 28, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant and F shall be the financial profit equivalent to the above loans in collusion with G.