배임수재등
1. Of the judgment below, each of the convictions against Defendant A, D, and F is reversed.
2. The defendant A shall be punished.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) the Defendants (the part of violation of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act that violated the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act that the Defendants violated the processing standards for livestock products by distributing the frozen meat at the temperature above -18°C) were entrusted by the Defendant F (hereinafter “F”) from the Jincheon Factory to cut freezing the freezing meat from the Defendant F (hereinafter “F”), and thereby entering the said Jincheon Factory into the said Jincheon Factory only constitutes “processing” of livestock products, and does not constitute “Preservation and Distribution”. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Defendant A, B, and C, who is an employee of Defendant F, in collusion with Defendant D, the head of the factory, and Defendant E, who is the N, stored the frozen meat at the temperature above -18°C. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Preservation and Distribution” under the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.
(2) Defendant A (A) The reasoning of the lower judgment on the part of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, which Defendant A received 10 million won from Defendant D’s illegal solicitation, was recognized as the reasoning of the lower judgment, and the part of the lower judgment that “a solicitation from the Defendant to the effect that the convenience in the sanitary inspection, etc. on N” was changed” did not constitute an “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and the part that “a solicitation from the Defendant to the effect that the transaction relationship may be maintained smoothly and smoothly” as stated in the indictment does not in itself constitute an “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust. Defendant A merely borrowed personal money from Defendant D and received a solicitation from Defendant D to consider convenience in the sanitary inspection, etc. of N, or to maintain transaction relation with N., the lower court found the Defendant guilty, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust.
(B) Defendant A did not prepare documents relating to raw material receipt and production work records.