Therefore, a consulting contract concluded between F and victimized Company by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant consulting contract”) is a legitimate conclusion in accordance with the above delegation.

In addition, the Defendant merely represented B, not the victimized company, with respect to the conclusion of the instant consulting contract, and thus, cannot be deemed as a bilateral agent prohibited under the Civil Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to the argument that there was a comprehensive mandate B, the Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. Accordingly, the lower court consistently stated by the investigative agency that ① the Defendant had no consultation with B with regard to the transfer of the price under the instant consulting contract; ② the Defendant did not state that he had agreed on the price under the instant consulting contract with B; ② the Defendant also did not state that he had agreed on the price under the instant consulting contract; ③ the victimized corporate body was owned by the Defendant; ④ the Defendant was the Defendant; ④ even if the Defendant was delegated with the right to transfer the damaged company’s management and funds, as long as the two delegation was prohibited under Article 124 of the Civil Act, the Defendant need to decide on the specific price under the consulting contract; ⑤ the Defendant paid the price under the instant consulting contract in consideration of the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, who was operated individually by B or B; and ② is a shareholder of the victimized company and the representative director, and shall pay the personal debt of the victimized company with the funds of the victimized company.