The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s obligation to pay the victims with respect to the primary facts charged and the victims’ obligation to resolve the penalty, etc. imposed on their own vehicles is independent obligations and cannot be deemed as included in the same liquidation procedure. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to pay the victims the price of stocks on the ground that the penalty, etc. was not settled constitutes embezzlement.

B. As to the conjunctive facts charged, the victims want to give the defendant a share purchase price.

Since the shares are transferred to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to return shares to the victims so long as the contract is terminated by the F.

Therefore, the defendant's act of selling the stocks of the victims to G in violation of such duty constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) The primary Defendant is B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

A person who was the representative director of the company, at the B office located in Si/Gun/Gu building 114 on April 10, 2015, the victim D and E who was a director of the company and held a certain ratio of the company's shares as a director of the company. "B will be good."

Around May 12, 2015, the victims issued a share transfer contract, the victims' personal seal certificates, etc. to transfer B shares of each of the 600 shares of each of the 600 shares of each of the 2,000 shares of each of the 600 shares of each of the 300 shares of each of the 600 shares (each share 40%) and the shares of each of the 800 shares of each of the 12 million shares (share 40%).

Since May 12, 2015, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with F on May 12, 2015 for the entire shares, but the contract was finally terminated, and it was again terminated on November 24, 2015.