The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or financial benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties. Here, his/her duties include duties within the scope closely related to the original duties.

Therefore, a civil petition related to the protection of the clan property at issue in this case, withdrawal of a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the resolution of the general assembly, and the convening of the D clan for ratification of the sales contract (hereinafter “the clan of this case”) constitutes affairs within the scope of the auditor’s duties or affairs closely related thereto.

In addition, even though the term of office as an auditor has expired at the time, the successor auditor was not appointed. The lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting, and the general meeting convened for the conclusion or ratification of the sale and purchase contract was needed to perform the duties of an auditor to protect the clan property, and to solve urgent circumstances. Since the defendant actually performs the audit's duties, this constitutes a case where the auditor whose term of office expires is recognized to have the right to perform

However, the lower court did not relate to the duties of a clan auditor, nor did the Defendant have actually performed the duty of audit and inspection even after the end of the audit term, for the withdrawal of the above application or lawsuit and solicitation for convening a general meeting.

On the ground that the facts charged cannot be seen, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of the crime of taking property in breach of trust or taking property in breach of trust.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, considered the following circumstances, the Defendant’s solicitation and acceptance of money and valuables only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.