The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) Inasmuch as the organization of X Claim Group (hereinafter “YY claim”) and its handling are not clear, Defendant A and B1 are auditors of the claim group. As such, Defendant A is the auditor of the claim group.

Even if the crime of breach of trust is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes “a person administering another’s business

In addition, Defendant A did not become aware of the account in which the funds of the KYB are deposited in the course of its activities as the auditor of the KYB, and there was no violation of the duties of the KYA.

Defendant A used the account information known to Defendant A as an auditor to enable B, C, etc. to proceed to a seizure and collection order.

Even if the collective nature and processing affairs are unclear, the risk of actual damage has occurred to the claim management company.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Defendant B believed that Defendant A would have been able to recover his own investment money because Defendant A managed and invested his account, and Defendant A was unaware of what kind of work as the auditor of the Busan Countermeasures Committee for Emergency Countermeasures against Victims of the Center, and there was no perception that Defendant A would not file an application for payment order in violation of the YA’s policy on the ground that Defendant A was an auditor of the Y claim group.

Therefore, Defendant B actively participated in the act of breach of trust by aiding and abetting Defendant A’s act of breach of trust or participating in the entire process of breach of trust.

The judgment of the court below is due to the mistake of facts.

C) Even if Defendant A and B’s act constitutes an element for establishing a crime of occupational breach of trust, since the Y claim does not act as an organization for the victims’ recovery of damage, it is unreasonable that the victims cannot take any measures for the victims’ personal recovery of damage.

Therefore, it is true.