Defendant

All the appeals filed by A and B and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B (guilty part of the judgment of the court below) was lawfully cancelled by Defendant A and B’s cancellation notice on the ground of delay in payment of the victim’s intermediate payment interest, etc. before the establishment of the additional collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security (hereinafter “the instant collateral security”) in the name of R Co., Ltd. on December 31, 2010 with respect to the sales facility H of the main complex building (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) indicated in the facts charged by misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehending the legal principles (the breach of trust against Defendant A and B) (hereinafter “instant shopping district”). Thus, at the time of the instant collateral security establishment, Defendant A and B were not in the position of “a person who administers another’s business,” who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust, was not in the position of “a person who administers another’s business.”

Even if Defendant A and B’s notice of cancellation is illegal and invalid, at the time, Defendant A and B believed that the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded, so there was no intention of breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence that the court below sentenced to Defendant A and B (Defendant A: imprisonment of 8 months, suspended execution of 2 years, and Defendant B: imprisonment of 8 months) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the fraud against the Defendants, who are the innocent portion of the judgment below) succeeds to the right to sell a commercial building, where a partner invested in kind and was allocated the real estate due to redevelopment as a sales contract of this case, the security right established in the real estate invested in kind, etc. is transferred to the commercial building sold. Thus, whether the current status of security established in the real estate invested in kind and the seller is capable of resolving the said security right by means of repaying the secured obligation