All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If a director, etc. of a company has already lost his ability to repay debt to another person when lending or guaranteeing the payment of the company's company's funds, or has lent such loans or guarantee without taking reasonable measures to recover debt in a considerable and reasonable manner, such act of allowing another person to gain profit and causing damage to the company, and the director of the company may not be exempted from the liability for the crime of breach of trust solely on the ground that it is a business judgment, and this does not change as an affiliated company of the subsidizing company.

On the other hand, whether the intent of breach of trust can be denied on the ground of business judgment should be determined individually depending on whether it is an intentional act with the awareness that one’s own or a third party obtained property benefits and that it is an intentional act with the awareness that it would inflict loss on the principal in light of all the circumstances, including the developments and motive leading up to the business judgment in question, the contents of the business subject to the determination, the economic situation faced by the company, the probability

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination that Defendant E, A, and B guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intent of management judgment and breach of trust, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the embezzlement of X project financing loans Co., Ltd.