The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. The Defendants’ assertion of mistake does not constitute “main assets in the line of duty,” and there is no benefit in the Defendants’ actual acquisition, thereby making it impossible to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of mistake of facts.

B. Even if the Defendants were found guilty of unfair sentencing, each sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in August, 200, Defendant C, and D: 2 years of suspended sentence in April, respectively) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A serving as technical directors of the victimized company G (Representative H) established for the purpose of manufacturing the parts of the engine engine fuel powder in Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, around 1999; around May 30, 2012, Defendant A retired from the damaged company; (a) from around June 1, 2012, Defendant B served as the president of J for the purpose of manufacturing ship engine parts in Busan, and (b) was managing the entire business with B; (c) Defendant B, as the head of a factory at K 2 factory, an affiliate of the victimized company, around April 9, 2012; and (d) Defendant C, as the head of the company at around 2, 2012, from around April 19, 2012 to around 2, 2019; and (e) Defendant C, as the director of the said J from around 16, 2012 to around 2, 2019, was performing the above work of fostering CNN on the part of the damaged company.

On the other hand, the injured company is manufacturing technology of fuel pumps (fluor, fluor valves, etc.), fuel powder valves (fluor, fluor, fluor, etc.), which are parts of ship diesel engine fuel distribution devices.