A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s attempted occupational breach of trust on behalf of the victimized company does not have the effect on the victimized company, and thus, the agreement prepared and delivered by the Defendant alone on behalf of the victimized company cannot be deemed as having caused actual damage or actual risk of damage. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The Defendant was unaware of the fact that he was dismissed from the position of the representative director at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 356 of the Criminal Act provides that an attempted occupational breach of trust shall be established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to obtain such profit by an act in violation of his/her duties, thereby causing damage to the principal. Article 359 provides that an attempted occupational breach of trust shall be punished.

As such, the Criminal Act provides that a person who administers another’s business shall engage in an act in violation of his/her duty and that an actor or a third party shall inflict damage on the principal by acquiring property benefits from such act. Thus, when a person who administers another’s business commences an act in violation of his/her duty with awareness and intent to inflict damage on the principal as a crime of breach of duty, i.e., an act in violation of one’s duty, i., an act in violation of one’s duty.