1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have maintained the first instance court, which found the Defendant guilty of occupational breach of trust, by establishing a separate advertising agency and concluding an advertising agency contract with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), while the Defendant, as the vice president of the victim company, maintained a work relationship with the victim company, in violation of his/her occupational duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 1,665,00 of the advertising agency fee, and causing damage equivalent to the above amount in the victim company.

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intention of breach of trust and a fiduciary relationship, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the profits acquired by the Defendant following the conclusion of the advertising agency contract with the advertiser as indicated in the judgment of F, etc., or the damages suffered by the victim company therefrom are the amount equivalent to the remuneration for the handling of the advertising agency business, and for example, the expenses that the

The gold, etc. is not included herein.

In the above purport, the court below determined that the amount of profit acquired by the defendant through each advertising agency contract of this case is limited to the amount equivalent to the advertising agency fee of F, etc., not to the total amount of sales received by F, and accordingly, it is not proven that the defendant acquired property benefits or suffered loss to the victim.