The judgment below

The part concerning the illegal use of a private person shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than four months.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of trial for the party concerned;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of all of the charges (illegal use by private persons, occupational breach of trust) against the Defendant.

② A prosecutor filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of facts.

Before remanding, the appellate court reversed the part on the illegal use of private person, sentenced a fine of KRW 3 million, and dismissed the rest of the prosecutor's appeal.

③ The Prosecutor filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the lower court before remanding the case on the grounds of violation of the evidence rule or violation of statutes.

④ Although the Supreme Court did not provide for a fine under Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act that provides for a crime of unlawful use by private person, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment before remanding the case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and dismissed the remainder of the prosecutor’s appeal.

B. The portion of not guilty of occupational breach of trust in the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the scope of the trial before the party's trial is not included in the scope of the trial of this court, since the appellate court rejected the allegation of grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court of final appeal as it deems that there

The scope of the trial shall be limited to the illegal use by private persons.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not follow the internal procedure, such as prior approval and seal use, at the time of preparing a special agreement by using the employee identification of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) on February 3, 2014, and did not make a prior report to the representative director on the execution of the special agreement of this case.

This constitutes a case where a seal imprint is used unfairly by abusing authority, and thus constitutes a crime of unlawful use by private persons.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by mistake.

3. The defendant's judgment.