Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

65 days during the period of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the first instance shall be included in the above sentence.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the Defendants' criminal facts of occupational breach of trust, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding the legal principles of the crime of breach of trust, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

2. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 2

Even if Defendant 2 offered to Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1, 2, and 3, who is the bank members of the court below, and the crime of occupational breach of trust has been committed, this is a case where the punishment is serious due to the personal relation that administers another’s business. As such, with respect to the defendant’s lelebane without such personal relation, it shall be subject to punishment in accordance with Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act in accordance with the proviso of Article 33

However, the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is applying only Articles 356, 355(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act to the defendant. This cannot be deemed to have been sentenced to the defendant within the scope of the term of punishment chosen by imprisonment among the prescribed penalty under Article 356 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance or the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of law, since all of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of law. Thus,

3. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed. According to the records of trial and the evidence examined by the court below and the court below, Defendant 1’s appeal is to be decided directly by the party members.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of defendant 2 is that the defendant did not commit the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the court of first instance found the defendant guilty. The second point is that the defendant committed an illegal act that misleads the facts, and the second point is that the sentence imposed by the court of first instance is too unreasonable, but the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance is sufficient to prove the facts of the crime at the time of the first trial against the defendant. Thus, the first point of the appeal is groundless.

However, prior to determining the second ground for appeal, it is evident that the defendant is not an employee of the Korean Commercial Bank, which is the victim of this case, and that he is not an employee of the Korean Commercial Bank, and even if the defendant committed the occupational breach of trust in collusion with Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1, 2, and 3, who is the bank members, the court below's co-defendant 1, 2, and 3, and even if the defendant committed the occupational breach of trust, he should be punished in accordance with the proviso of Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act for the defendant who has no status relationship with him, but has to be punished in accordance with the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act. However, the court of first instance has selected the defendant as a imprisonment with prison labor under Article 356 of the Criminal Act and has been punished within the scope of the term of punishment. The judgment of the

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the members are directly decided.

The facts charged by the defendant and the evidence related to the facts charged by the party member are cited in the judgment of the court of first instance.

The so-called "nomenclature" in the law refers to Articles 356, 355 (2), and 30 of the Criminal Act. However, the defendant does not have any status to manage another person's business. The defendant is punished pursuant to the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act because he does not have any status to manage another person's business, so the defendant selects imprisonment among the prescribed periods of punishment pursuant to the proviso of Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act, and above is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and crimes under the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and crimes under the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Regulation of Illegal Check Control Act, which have already been final and conclusive judgment, are to separately determine punishment for each crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered pursuant to Article 39 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within one year, and six five days prior to the sentence of the judgment of the court below.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)