1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, C, E, and F, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established when it is combined with the perception that the intention of a person handling another’s business to cause property damage to the principal and that the intention to obtain property benefits to the principal or a third party is in violation of his/her duty. In the event that the Defendant denies the criminal intent by asserting that he/she committed an act at issue in the interest of the principal with respect to the inner facts, which are the subjective elements of the crime of occupational breach of trust, such as intentional intent, etc., which is a subjective element of the crime of occupational breach of trust, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intent given the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intention should be determined reasonably by the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal experience. If the employees of the financial institution continued to grant a loan, it cannot be said that the act of occupational breach of trust did not have any knowledge that the third party has obtained property benefits and had financial institutions recognize property damage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679 Decided February 11, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13868 Decided April 29, 201, etc.). The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, which is the implementation of a crime through the functional control based on the intent of co-processing and its common intent. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of the intent to realize a crime by co-processing of a crime in a successive or implicit manner, a conspiracy is established, and such conspiracy is established.