A. Since the Defendant did not know that financial statements, etc. were prepared falsely, he did not have the intention of breach of trust.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the content of the search and seizure inspection warrant of this case is not the information that the defendant acquired in personal, but the confidential information related to the smuggling of the investigation is not included in the subject of protection as provided by Article 21-2 of the Banking Act.

(c)

The punishment (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, community service, 200 hours) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust as a subjective element, the perception of breach of duty as a subjective element and thereby, the perception that the principal or a third party gains profit and causes loss to the principal, i.e., the intent of breach of trust. Such perception is sufficient with dolusence.

Where the defendant denies the criminal intent of the crime of breach of trust, the subjective element of the crime of breach of trust is to be proved by the method of proving indirect facts having substantial relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be reasonably determined based on the normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7878, Mar. 26, 2004; 2008Do9066, Jul. 15, 2010) and the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the original trial, based on the following circumstances.

A) From November 201 to May 201, 201, H directly delivers to the Defendant the documents, etc. of an application for loans by 50 or more companies from around 50 to around 50, 201, H is not the Defendant, which is always accompanied by the on-site inspection on the applicant company, and whether H is performing the on-site inspection schedule or loan.