For the crime of occupational breach of trust to be established, there is a subjective perception that property damage occurs or is likely to occur to the principal as a result of the act of occupational breach of trust, and there is a perception that one's own or a third party obtains property benefits, it is sufficient to do so, and there is no need to aim to obtain property benefits from the principal or a third party (Supreme Court Decision 87Do1436 delivered on February 23, 198).

According to the records, even if the non-indicted corporation is not engaged in discount of bills or checks as a business and the management status thereof is not good, the defendant can be aware of the fact that he held office as the representative director and did not have any other collateral without the resolution of the board of directors (2% per month and 5%) the discount of bills or checks, and it cannot be said that there was no awareness that such discount of bills or checks itself contains the risk of default and that there was a risk of default on payment for bills or checks by the defendant. There is no ground for appeal.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the timely evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) (a), (b), (c), and (3) may be recognized at the time of the judgment of first instance, and there is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)