1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, it is justifiable to find the lower court guilty of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. The defense counsel asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court below, which held that the defendant had had each business partner acquire profits equivalent to the difference by selling the processed meat products at a price lower than the normal market price of each business partner.

However, since the court of final appeal is a follow-up trial on the judgment of the appellate court, matters not subject to the judgment of the appellate court are not subject to the scope of the judgment of the court of final appeal. As such, the grounds other than those which the defendant did not claim in the appellate court as the grounds of appeal, or which the appellate

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2104 Decided June 30, 2006). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant asserted only mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing as to the occurrence of the victim’s company’s damages as grounds for appeal, and the lower court’s decision did not consider other matters ex officio. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the case, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational breach of trust in recognition and judgment of the court below that each customer acquired property benefits through the discount sale of this case by the defendant.

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