The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant in charge of the duties, such as the construction of the office in Daejeon Metropolitan City E-gu and the receipt of an application for permission to display outdoor advertisements, and the collection of fees, received the application for permission and issued a written permission for 297,920 won over 13 times in violation of his/her duties, and received it, thereby allowing the civil petitioner to gain property benefits, causing damage to the E-gu Office in Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City, and embezzlement by arbitrarily consuming the total amount of 1,510,000 won of fees kept on duty.

Judgment

As to the part of the judgment on the primary charge of breach of trust, the lower court alleged that the Defendant, instead of the investigative agency, alleged to the effect that the Defendant was “only an error that occurred while dealing with the business in breach of the relevant provisions,” and that there was no intention of breach of trust,” and that the Defendant was a business triped to the Defendant on the last day specified as the date of the crime of occupational breach of trust under the List of Offenses Act, but there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant was in charge of the business in such a case. Even if the Defendant did not properly conduct the settlement of accounts after the business trip, it can only be deemed as a false business, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was an intention of breach of trust. ② The sum of the commission charges charged by the Defendant for breach of trust in the course of dealing with the pertinent business is 5,645,710 won, the sum of the commission charges charged by the Defendant for breach of trust is 297,920 won per case, 7,500 won per case, and the unpaid amount between the Defendant and a third party who did not have any special relationship.