The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant waives his right to independently conclude a gold production and delivery contract between G and G, and Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim company”) operated by G.

(2) Since there was no agreement with G to conclude a gold production and delivery contract only for the sake of B, and there was an agreement with G to allow the Defendant to autonomously receive gold production in the above M’s name and to take all the profit therefrom, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of breach of trust inasmuch as the Defendant independently entered into a gold production and supply contract and thereby, the pecuniary gain acquired by the Defendant and the pecuniary loss of the victim company arising therefrom, by independently concluding the gold production and supply contract, shall be deemed to be the amount equivalent to 50% of the operating profit after deducting the production cost from the contract amount. In particular, in the case of the attached Table 3 and 5, the contract amount was not actually paid in full, this portion of the unpaid amount shall be deducted from the amount of damage. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court on unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, and eight hours of social service work) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the lower court determined each of the instant offenses of breach of trust as substantive concurrent crimes.

However, even if multiple acts of occupational breach of trust are committed as shown in the facts charged in this case, if the legal interest of damage is a single and the form of crime is the same, and if such multiple acts of breach of trust can be seen as a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, such multiple acts of breach of trust constitute a crime including a single act of violation of trust.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do541 Decided July 23, 2009). Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.