The judgment below

The guilty part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) occupational breach of trust (1) The subject that the Defendant concluded a self-agency contract with the victim company that is not the subject of occupational breach of trust is F’s operator, and A is in the position of dealing with the affairs for the victim company in relation to the victim company. The Defendant, as an employee of A, only performed his duties in accordance with A’s direction, and is not in the position of dealing with the affairs of the victim company.

(2) The Defendant, who had no intention to commit occupational breach of trust, committed an act as described in the facts charged in accordance with the direction of the employer, trusting the victim’s speech that the Defendant would not cause any damage to the victim company, and did not have the intention to commit occupational breach of trust.

(3) Furthermore, an act coerciond under the Criminal Act constitutes an act committed by a defendant at the request of a defendant to bear an obligation in the course of operating an enterprise under the name of the defendant's mother, and where a defendant fails to properly operate the company, such as where he/she was unable to receive the payment of money that he/she lent to a person, he/she was placed in an economically imminent situation. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes an act coerciond by a defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of occupational breach of trust. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The Defendant’s act of defamation was transmitted the same message as indicated in the facts charged at the Kakao Stockholm conference room in which the victim, A, and N participated. However, the Defendant’s act did not have awareness of the above publishing facts. However, the Defendant’s act did not constitute the crime of defamation due to lack of performance.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of defamation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or thereby affecting the conclusion.