A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant asserted that he is not the subject of breach of trust is not the “person who administers another’s business,” who is the subject of breach of trust,” since the Defendant performed the instant construction in an independent position by accepting a blanket subcontract from the victim company for the F Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”).

2) The Plaintiff had the authority to dispose of the construction cost of the Victim Company with respect to the instant construction project claiming that there was no deception.

U has accepted the defendant's act explicitly or implicitly, so there was an error in the victim company in deceiving the victim company or paying the construction cost, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) Since the victim company allowed the victim company to additionally pay KRW 200 million to the defendant in the course of settling accounts related to the instant construction project, the pertinent amount should be excluded from the amount of damage. Since the defendant inputs not less than KRW 60,000 out of the amount received from the victim company through the false tax invoice, etc., there was no intent to acquire unlawful profits with respect to the pertinent amount.

In addition, even though part of the damage amount stated in the annexed crime list of the judgment below is not a false or excessive claim, the court below also included this part in the damage amount.

B. The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant alleged that he was not the subject of the crime of breach of trust, and the lower court also asserted the same purport.

3. Determination

A. As long as the result of performing the instant construction is reverted to the victim company’s calculation and responsibility, the Defendant is subject to the detailed circumstances stated in the item of “the assertion on the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes”.