Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 60,000 won into one day.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) In relation to the crime of occupational breach of trust, the crime of occupational breach of trust is not a crime of occupational breach of trust in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant committed an act identical to the charges 1.1. of this case, not a loss to the victim company; (b) the Defendant did not have the intent to inflict losses on the victim company; and (c) there was no intention in breach of trust, which is the intent to gain a profit or gain a profit to a third party; and (d) the victim company would not have a problem even if business employees apply discount rates higher than the discount rates set by the company; or (e) the victim company would not have been aware of the illegality as an act of a political party with the explicit or implied consent

(2) In relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement, the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established on the grounds that the Defendant did not have any intent or criminal intent necessary to establish the crime of embezzlement, in view of the circumstance that the Defendant deposited the sales proceeds into the Defendant’s passbook as stated in the facts charged of the instant case 2.3. The Defendant did not receive the sales proceeds by the passbook in his name for his own interest, and that there was no benefit of the Defendant.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the conviction is recognized, the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too heavy in view of the following: (a) the circumstance, motive, and the company’s damage is unclear; (b) the company is also responsible for the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant has no substantial benefits from the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant has no substantial benefits.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) We examine the point of occupational breach of trust. Comprehensively considering the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the victim company's company divided the limitation rates applicable to the business of non-indicted 1's witness, and posted them officially each month, while it was not allowed to enter the above restriction rates into portable sales terminal provided to the business members. Furthermore, where the above restriction rates are discovered through regular or occasional claims, the non-indicted 1, who had been at the place of business, issued a warning that the defendant would not engage in the business of the defendant, etc. from time to time to time to prevent the crime of this case's violation of the law, was unable to be seen as an unlawful act of the defendant's violation of the law because the defendant's disclosure of this case's sales revenue constitutes an unlawful act of violation of the law of disclosure or disclosure of this case's sales revenue under the general circumstances of other business offices, such as the defendant's disclosure of this case's sales revenue x the defendant's improper act of violation of the law of disclosure or disclosure of this case's sales revenue rate.

(2) Next, with respect to occupational embezzlement, if the defendant did not deposit the sales price of the product owned by the victim company in business custody in accordance with the purpose of the collection, and deposited and used it in the defendant's personal passbook, the crime of occupational embezzlement can be deemed established ( even if the defendant's statement was made, there was no example that he received the sales price of the product directly from the business partner through the defendant's personal passbook, and there was no example that he received the sales price of the product from the business partner. The investigation record is just and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in the crime of occupational embezzlement.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

According to the records, the defendant's act of committing each of the crimes of this case can be deemed to have been considerably affected by the fact that the business goals set by the victim company were excessive to the extent that it would have been difficult to achieve easily by normal means, and there are factors to be considered in the motive of the crime. Considering the defendant's liability for damages caused by the illegal acts of this case as the first offender who has no previous criminal record, it may be deemed that there is no substantial benefit gained by the defendant from the crime of this case, and taking into account other circumstances such as the defendant's age, reputation, character and behavior, family relationship, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's argument in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (with regard to occupational breach of trust, inclusive) of the Criminal Act, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational embezzlement)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judge Don Jins (Presiding Judge)