The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. The lower court’s scope of trial in this Court dismissed an application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and where the application for compensation order was rejected, the applicant is immediately determined without filing an objection and the decision of rejection is immediately finalized, and cannot file an application for the same compensation order again without filing an appeal (see Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). The part which rejected the application for compensation order in the lower court is excluded from the subject matter of trial in this Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do20745, May 30, 201

A. In light of the fact-finding, etc., the Defendant, without intent to take personal benefits, did not have the intent to commit a breach of trust against the Defendant, on the basis of the information collected within the possible range, and did so with careful decision for the benefit of the Victim B (hereinafter “victim B”) and sold the shares owned by the victimized Company.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio the defendant's above reasons for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

For the prosecutor's trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to "1,160,747,544 won" among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court's permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the above assertion of mistake of facts, etc. by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of determining the modified facts charged, even if there are the above reasons for reversal of authority.

4. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. To establish the relevant legal doctrine as a crime of occupational breach of trust, the breach of duty is a subjective element.