All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal (i.e., breach of trust as to the first ground of appeal by a person administering another’s business in violation of one’s duty, the crime of breach of trust is established by having a third party acquire pecuniary advantage or have another person obtain

In determining whether an act of an executive of a juristic person, such as lending funds to another juristic person or guaranteeing the obligations of another juristic person, constitutes a crime of breach of trust, whether an act of an executive of the juristic person in question, such as lending such funds, is an act of under a fiduciary relationship between the juristic person and the executive, by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of law, the terms of the contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course, and whether such an act causes a risk of actual damage to the property of the juristic person.

In lending corporate funds to another person, if a director, etc. of a company knew that it would cause damage to the company if the other person has already lost the ability to repay his/her debt and lent the funds to that person, or if he/she continues to lend the funds only without taking reasonable measures to recover claims such as receiving sufficient collateral, such loans are an act of allowing the other person to gain profit and causing damage to the company, and such loans do not change as an affiliated company of the financial support company.

On the other hand, it is problematic whether the intention of breach of trust can be recognized on the ground of business judgment.