특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) submitted within the deadline for submitting a statement of reasons for appeal (i.e., November 22, 2017), alleged mistake or misunderstanding of facts as the grounds for appeal, and the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted to the purport that supplements the grounds for appeal (i.e., January 12, 2018), alleged misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing as the grounds for appeal.
In this paper, we will look at the above reasons for appeal and the contents of the statement supplementing the reasons for appeal, and examine whether ex officio sentencing is unfair or not, despite the legitimate grounds for appeal filed after the deadline for submitting the reasons for appeal.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the judgment.
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances in relation to the act of violation of occupational duties, the Defendant’s act of receiving rebates from the I Limited Partnership Company (I; hereinafter “I”) in relation to the conclusion of the instant sponsor agreement does not constitute an act of violation of occupational duties against the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).
Since the so-called “fair duty” under Article 7 of the advertising agency service contract (hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”) between the victimized company and H on December 16, 2010 is applicable only after the date of the conclusion of the said contract, there is no room for the Defendant to apply the said provision under the instant advertising agency contract to the act of receiving rebates of USD 600,000 from I (hereinafter “instant sponsor contract”) with respect to the act of receiving rebates of USD 600,000 from I in relation to the sponsoring contract concluded between the victimized company and I (hereinafter “instant sponsoring contract”).
In addition, the "Duty of Fairness" under the instant advertising agency contract is in the instant case.