The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

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

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the relations between E (hereinafter “E”) and the head office, business types, roles and public relations of A and the Defendant, and the subject of each individual act indicated in the attached list of crimes.

The defendant does not have any fact of gathering A and/or B by using the customer of E in excess of his/her competitor.

After receiving an order from the customer, the Defendant was only the role of delivering the goods to the customer in accordance with the direction of the head office or A, and did not participate in the business of securing or supplying the goods ordered by the customer.

In addition, the fact that the defendant made a transaction by excluding E in accordance with A's instructions is limited to six times in the attached list of crimes Nos. 6, 7, 8, 16, 26, and 27, and the rest of 70 times was not known.

The Defendant retired from E on March 20, 2018, and thereafter there was no participation in the purchase of goods and the settlement of the price of the E-Institution after retirement.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In order to recognize a beneficiary who benefits from the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust or a third party closely related thereto as a co-principal with the perpetrator of the crime of occupational breach of trust, it is not sufficient to gain profits by taking advantage of the perpetrator’s act of breach of trust, and it is necessary to actively participate in the act of breach of trust by inducing the perpetrator to commit the act of breach of trust or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4382 Delivered on October 30, 2003