A. Defendant B and D’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, as indicated in the instant facts charged, provided that the expenses for the promotion of entrance fees in the accounts of I University L operated by the educational foundation H were disbursed under the pretext other than the actual items of expenditure, and paid them to the unlawful user, and did not be returned at will, or returned, or disbursed for another reason. However, this is a school foundation H’s occupational practice, and the amount which was not returned or returned was used for the purpose of promoting the entrance of I University. As such, all of the aforementioned payments were used for the purpose of promoting the entry of I University. Accordingly, the school foundation H was not damaged, and the above Defendants or other third parties did not have any property profit, and thus, the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established against the above Defendants.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts do not have any participation in the crime of occupational breach of trust, such as the instant facts charged, and there was no personal benefit. Therefore, the lower court which found the above Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of occupational breach

C. The lower court’s sentence against the above Defendants B, C, and D on the assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant B’s fine of KRW 5,000,000, Defendant C, and each fine of KRW 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant B and D’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational breach of trust.