The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the process certificate and the statement of the complainant, etc. submitted as evidence of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the defendant arbitrarily acquired the business profits of the victimized company.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who works for the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) located in Yangsan-si from November 2007 to August 201, 2014 as a business employee and has been engaged in mediating the supply of building materials and receiving business fees.

The Defendant, while working for the damaged company, entered into an agreement with the government offices to arrange for the supply of building materials and receive certain fees from the supplier company in the name of the company, and to receive 30% of the net profit amount from the company by receiving the tax invoice from the supplier company to the corporate passbook account (in the form of a franchise agreement or the actual nature of the performance wage).

Since the defendant is a business employee belonging to the victimized company, if he/she conducts business such as arranging the supply of building materials in the name of the victimized company, he/she has a duty to inform the victimized company of such profit and deposit the profit into the passbook account of the victimized company.

The defendant violated the above duties and did not notify the damaged company of the business activities conducted against E apartment management office on April 2, 2008, and received 1,900,000 won from the proceeds to the Saemaul Treasury Account (F) in the name of the defendant, and acquired the property gains in total of 304,987,964 won from the above day to February 19, 2014 in the same way and suffered damage equivalent to the same amount from the victim company.

B. The lower court’s judgment held that the Defendant was a fair certificate with the content that the Defendant would pay KRW 200 million to the complainant (hereinafter “instant document”).