The guilty portion against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.

A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) Defendant A in occupational breach of trust concluded that the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “victim Co., Ltd.”) had no intent to conduct the TM certification and introduced customers to G, so there was no intention of breach of trust

(B) Violation of the Trademark Act ① Defendant A used the trademark of “O” in writing, “ISO 901 in 2010, ISO 17025, and Inc/Ex-aluda Audi education program” in order to carry out the education of ISO, which is the duties of the victim company. Thus, Defendant A is not in violation of the Trademark Act.

② Defendant B used “R” trademark when entering into a contract for certification agency of credit card devices, which is not identical or similar to the designated goods of the said trademark, and thus is not in violation of the Trademark Act.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) M&T used by Defendant B by mistake of facts constitutes a copyrighted work and constitutes a violation of the Copyright Act.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) occupational breach of trust, a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to do so, thereby causing loss to the principal. In such cases, "an act in violation of his/her duties" includes all acts in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act naturally expected under the provisions of law, terms of a contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act expected not to perform an act naturally to be done, in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do520, Jun. 24, 2004). (B), Defendant A was in charge of the business of certification of QM from September 2009 to the victim company.