The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The employees of the lower court’s holding that the act of occupational breach of trust was committed during the period of the act of occupational breach of trust as indicated in the lower judgment, and the victim G (hereinafter “victim G”) committed out-of-the-job business for a period other than the hours of business to the extent that it does not affect the business affairs of the victim company, thereby causing damage to the victim company

not, (the occurrence of the loss), even if the damage was incurred.

Even if an employee does not calculate the amount equivalent to the amount of wages equivalent to the hours during which he/she performs out-of-the-job services, and the full amount of the cost of out-time services received by the Defendant does not amount to the damages of the victim company (the scope of damages). (2) The employees in the judgment of the court below alleged interference with the business performed the out-of-job services according to the orders of the Defendant and B. Thus, the act of the employees to change the placement of the office site or refrain from claiming for the out-time allowances does not constitute a "

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor applied for changes in indictment in exchange for the facts charged at the trial of the party, and the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the facts charged are changed as permitted by this court.

However, although there are reasons for reversal of authority above, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

However, the argument about the scope of damages caused by occupational breach of trust was made to the purport that it is consistent with the above, so it cannot be viewed as subject to the judgment of this court, and it is not judged separately.

3. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant in occupational breach of trust.