The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the point of occupational breach of trust, the defendants lent money to the clans of this case only with the very abstract purpose of "promotion of the clans" and followed the procedures of the board of directors, etc. even though there was no urgent reason to lend money to the clans of this case at the time of lending the money to the clans of this case.

In light of the fact that if the clan of this case suffered damage due to the act, it can be an act of breach of trust, and that there is doubt about the ability of the clan of this case to repay, the intent of breach of trust can be sufficiently recognized.

With respect to the occupation of occupational embezzlement, the litigation costs paid by Defendant A do not constitute the case where the costs of lawsuit can be paid out of the funds of the organization during the instant type of business.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted all the charges of occupational breach of trust and occupational embezzlement of this case.

2. We examine the evidence of this case closely in light of the records. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor based on the judgment of the court below is just in the judgment of the court below that ① lending of money to the clan of this case to the clan of this case violates the duty of managing the disposition of the clan property of this case, the defendants are aware that the clan of this case was damaged to the clan of this case and that the lawsuit subject to the payment of litigation expenses of this case cannot be paid to the clan of this case, ② the lawsuit subject to the payment of litigation expenses of this case constitutes a case where the lawsuit of this case cannot be paid to the clan of this case, and the defendant A did not have to pay the litigation expenses with the knowledge of such circumstance, and therefore, the new evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the trial of the court below was not submitted. Thus, the prosecutor pointed out in the judgment of the court below.