Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants A and B and by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to occupational breach of trust), Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”).

) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) and subcontractors.

) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”)

A) There was no agreement on the unit price of the cargo recovery work fee between the parties, and thus, at a reasonable price below the market price. The unit price determined by the Defendant is the victim company and the F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”).

() Even if the unit price under the above contract is higher than the unit price under the contract entered into between the parties, this is due to the fact that the unit price under the above contract was set lower than the general market price due to the superior position of F, and the victim company profits through the above contract, which is the content of comprehensively ordering the whole process, such as overseas transportation clearance and domestic transportation, etc. The victim company did not raise an issue even though it was aware of the unit price decided by the defendant through the report or approval obtained by the defendant. Therefore, the court below which recognized the crime of occupational breach of trust was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant could not be deemed to have violated his duty, the court below's judgment that recognized the crime of occupational breach of trust was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in October) against the Defendants by the prosecutor (defendant D) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant, without authority, determined the unit price between the victim company, G, and J. The victim company is either at a disadvantage or (G) rather than the agreed unit price.