1. A. Of the judgment of the court below, the part of conviction against Defendant A (including the part of acquittal for the reasons) and Defendant B and E.

The lower court found Defendant A guilty of the part concerning the embezzlement of goods related to the joint crime with E [Article 4, 5, 9, 13, 34, 40, 48, 49, 67 through 69, 77 through 79, total amount of KRW 45,90,00 in total, 14 times per year] of the attached Table 2 of the lower judgment’s judgment, which was deposited by the Defendant or its branch in E account from the Defendant or its branch.

However, this does not coincide with the E’s statement on the method of receiving the proceeds of embezzlement, and the lower court, as of June 1, 2013, determined that the victim due to the previous crime was the Global Corporation of Coul and the victim due to the crime thereafter, as Coul global corporation and the victim due to the crime (see, e.g., Section 3 of the lower judgment). However, the lower court’s judgment does not distinguish the above two companies for the convenience of statements, but collectively referred to as “victim company” without distinguishing them for the convenience of statements.

It is not consistent with the computer registration system procedure, which is only the money that the defendant lent to E at the time.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement of occupational duties by reliance on only the statements and account transfer details of E without credibility.

The sole crime of occupational breach of trust (Article 2017, 17, 3-A) was committed by the victimized Company at the time of the crime. Since the victimized Company cannot directly purchase goods from “Y” and “X”, or cannot pass through a third company due to the guarantee period, etc., it cannot be formed in itself as “reasonable purchase price” in a case where the victimized Company purchases goods directly from “Y” and “X”, and the difference therefrom cannot be calculated.

Nevertheless, the court below suffered property loss of occupational breach of trust.

The recognition was recognized.

In the case of occupational breach of trust, joint crimes with E [Article 2017, 17, 2017, b. ] Any property damage suffered by the damaged company due to the omission of software price calculation software for the crime of omitting software prices cannot exceed the profit gained by R.