The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, from March 30, 2012 to early November 2011 of the same year, was working as the representative director of the Victim D Co., Ltd. and took overall charge of personnel, accounting, and business affairs.

The defendant, as a general manager of business affairs, has a duty to manage business sales in good faith and secure the victim's income.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not request user fees from the operators of E and F with friendship to exempt program user fees.

A. The Defendant in occupational breach of trust, around April 2012, at the office of the victim of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G and nine floors, did not claim KRW 13.2 million for program usage fees from April 2012 to July 201 of the same year, and did not claim KRW 13.2 million for program usage fees from around April 2012 to around July 201 of the same year, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 13.2 million for the victim, and suffered damage equivalent to the same amount.

B. F-related occupational breach of trust: (a) around October 2012, the Defendant: (b) violated the aforementioned duties and did not claim KRW 30,80,000 from April 2012 to October 2012 for program usage fee of KRW 30,80,000 from the victim’s pening program in violation of the said duties; (c) thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 30.8 million from the victim’s office; and (d) inflicted damages equivalent to the same amount on the victim.

2. Determination

A. Whether the crime of breach of trust constitutes a case where property damage, which is a requirement for establishing the crime of breach of trust, is not a legal judgment but an economic point of view, and thus, is legally null

Even if the risk of actual damage or actual damage to property is caused from an economic perspective, the crime of breach of trust should be established (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do15857, Feb. 23, 2012). However, the risk of actual damage should reach the degree of specific risk.