The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) of the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court below is practically under the control of the defendant, and the co-representative J delegated all the business affairs of the victim Co., Ltd. to the defendant. In the process of issuing the performance guarantee insurance to D Co., Ltd., Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., without the consent of J individually, jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant’s obligation of reimbursement against D Co.

Even if such an act constitutes an occupational breach of trust under Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational breach of trust and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, between stock companies, and between stock companies and shareholders, as the existence of a separate legal personality cannot be the same person. Thus, even one shareholder or lender, if there exists a violation of duties that inflict damage on the stock company which is the principal, the crime of breach of trust is established. If an executive officer of a company obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to do so by an act in violation of his/her duties, thereby causing loss to the company, the crime of breach of trust is established. In fact, the majority shareholder's understanding was obtained or a resolution was adopted by the board of directors

Therefore, it does not affect the establishment of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do822, Nov. 24, 2000; 2004Do7027, Nov. 9, 2006). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal principles: