The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was known that the Defendant was aware of the fact that A and M claimed excessive insurance proceeds, and thus there was an intention to commit occupational breach of trust in respect of the victim's Korean Commercial Non-Life Insurance Act.

Judgment

Criminal facts should be proved by a judge to have high probability to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the interest of the defendant should be determined even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do3483, Jun. 19, 2018; 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007). In order to establish a crime of occupational breach of trust, the perception of breach of duty as a subjective element and the perception that one's or a third party's interests are acquired and thereby causes damage to the principal, i.e., the intention of breach of trust (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do8851, Dec. 23, 2010; 2005Do4640, May 29, 2008; 2004Do520, Jun. 24, 2004).

The fact that the Defendant stated “” (Evidence No. 3489 pages), ② the fact that there was a need for a person to prepare a quotation in L because the quotation had not been permanently stationed in L at the time of the instant case (Evidence No. 4287 pages), ③ the Defendant’s friendly relationship with M (Evidence No. 3795, 4672 pages), ④ the Defendant had been engaged in an estimate work outside of business hours such as weekends (Evidence No. 3795 page, Trial Records No. 170 page), ⑤ the Defendant prepared and provided a quotation mainly for difficult cases such as external teas, rare types (Evidence No. 4403, 4404 pages), ⑤ the fact that the Defendant was able to prepare a quotation (Evidence No. 4403, 4404 pages of the Evidence No. 5).