The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to loans related to the golf course business of S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”)

A. As to the assertion that no intention is recognized, the intention in the crime of occupational breach of trust is established by combining the perception that the person who deals with another's business would inflict property damage on the principal and thereby would take property benefits of himself/herself or a third party, and that the occurrence of such profit and loss is in breach of his/her duty.

Therefore, in determining whether a manager had an intent to obtain an intent to obtain an intent to commit a breach of trust or an unlawful acquisition in connection with a business judgment, the intent to commit a breach of trust should be recognized only in cases where it is recognized that such act is an intentional act with the awareness that the manager or a third party would obtain property benefits and that it would inflict a loss on the principal in light of the circumstances, such as the process and motive leading up to the business judgment in question, the contents of the business subject to the determination, the economic situation of the company, the probability of occurrence of loss and the possibility of obtaining profit. Even though there was no such recognition, the manager shall not be held liable solely on the ground that he/she was negligent in the course

However, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business performed in the course of breach of trust, the act of breach of trust refers to any act that does not perform as a matter of course an act that ought to be done under the provisions of the law, the content of the contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, or an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course, thereby falling under a fiduciary relationship with the principal, and thus,