The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court convicted the victim AD of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud.

2. Occupational breach of trust;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles on accomplices and status (1) The crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person in a position to handle another’s business commits an act in breach of one’s duty to obtain pecuniary advantage or let a third party obtain such benefit, thereby causing loss to the principal.

In that it is the status of dealing with another person's business, it is an aggravated provision for simple breach of trust, which is a case of seriousness of punishment due to status relationship.

Therefore, if a person who does not have such status as an occupational duty has committed a crime of occupational breach of trust in collusion with such status holder, punishment should be imposed on an accomplice who does not have such status in accordance with the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act.

In this case, under the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, a criminal breach of trust is established against an unrelated accomplice, on condition that the statutory punishment for a simple crime of breach of trust is applied, not only to a heavier punishment but also to a heavier punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1517, Oct. 28, 1986; 2010Do6507, Sept. 9, 2010). (2) This part of the facts charged is that the defendant conspired to commit an act of occupational breach of trust against AD in the position of a person who administers another's business against AG, and thus, the defendant without a status relationship as an occupational duty is only a criminal of occupational breach of trust under the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act.