The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The scholarship that Defendant A received from a graduate school from a prestigious university constitutes a reduction or exemption or refund of the enrollment fee, and the Defendant is obligated to return the scholarship to the company that provided the enrollment fee in accordance with the good faith principle.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement or breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant’s act of personal consumption without notifying the company of the fact that he received the scholarship constitutes embezzlement or breach of trust.

B. Defendant B only reported documents delivered by the representative director I of G Co., Ltd. and provided a simple entry for electronic bidding, and the Defendant did not enter a key.

However, since G cannot be deemed to have failed to perform the electronic bid, the Defendant’s act of entering the key into the Defendant’s key does not constitute a breach of trust, and cannot be deemed to have caused damage to the victimized company.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor, while maintaining the facts charged in this case around the trial, applied for changes in indictment with respect to breach of trust and the application for amendments to indictment with respect to which the applicable provisions of the Acts are added, and this court permitted the same, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this regard.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged still is subject to the judgment of this court, and then the decision is made on the ancillary facts.

B. The summary of the facts charged 1 is a person who served as a vice head from September 1998 to May 30, 201 as the victim E company.

The defendant is a victim company.