The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. misunderstanding the gist of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding the legal principles: it is reasonable to view that the defendant, the representative director of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Co., Ltd.") lent KRW 1 billion to H and I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "H, etc.") without any transactional relationship under the name of the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "the above money," and the above lending constitutes a breach of trust that causes damage to the victim company by violating the representative director's duty as a representative director.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of the lending of this case, which must be corrected.

2. The lower court determined based on the following legal principles as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendant was conducting the instant loan in accordance with the business judgment by which the victim company started a new business. However, in order to raise the instant money, it was found that the Defendant was erroneous that the value of the collateral provided by the Defendant, such as H, was sufficient for the Plaintiff to obtain a loan from K (hereinafter “instant loan”), and that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had an intention to acquire the intent of breach of trust and illegal acquisition with respect to the instant loan.

① The profitability of telecommunications construction business operated by the victim company has deteriorated, and the victim company participated in the M construction business on September 2009 was also in a situation where it is necessary to develop a beneficial new business because it has little profits.

At this time, the Defendant seems to have borrowed the instant case upon L’s request in order to receive proposals from L to participate in the business through Dong E.

(2) When the defendant stand joint and several surety for the loan of this case, he/she shall do so with the victim company.