All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ act of establishing the right to collateral security is invalid under the Private School Act; even if the Defendants’ act of establishing the right to collateral security is invalid under the Private School Act, the victim F filed a lawsuit to cancel the registration of the right to collateral security by subrogation of the Defendants, which led to the occurrence of property damage or the risk of causing property damage, and thus, the act of breach of trust committed an act of breach of trust. Nevertheless, the act of

In light of the foregoing, only the crime of attempted breach of trust is found guilty, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s respective punishment (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles and circumstances set forth in its reasoning, the lower court held that the Defendants completed the registration of establishment of a right of retention against I, J, and K as to the land site and facilities, the land site and facilities, the facilities of which are directly used for school education, and building on the land and its ground.

Even if this is invalid because it is in violation of Article 28(2) of the Private School Act and Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, the victim F suffers property damage or risk of damage.

As can not be seen, the Defendants’ breach of trust did not reach the number of pages.

On the other hand, only the crime of attempted breach of trust was recognized, and this part of the facts charged was acquitted.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and the record, the lower court’s respective sentencing grounds, which were alleged by the Defendants, shall be determined reasonably by fully taking account of the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendants.