The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) In relation to fraud, G and I do not have research institute but have actually performed the relevant task, and therefore there was no deception and fraud, and (2) in relation to the crime of breach of trust, the Defendant actually carried out various task meetings on the same day. However, since the meals after the meeting were carried out as the annual meeting of the company, it was only settled in proportion to the number of participants, and it did not use the instant credit card in violation of the purpose of the instant credit card, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence on fraud: (a) under the relevant provision on the payment of the instant personnel expenses, the “ personnel expenses” is the expenses to be paid to the researcher directly participating in the pertinent task; (b) G is the employee at the management support office of the Defendant Company, not the researcher, but the researcher was in charge of accounting and administrative affairs; and (c) there was no ability to research the pertinent task; and (d) I is deemed to have not been subject to the above payment of the personnel expenses as an administrative employee; and (e) the Defendant’s intent to commit deception and fraud, such as the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, is recognized, and this part of the Defendant

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence regarding the crime of breach of trust, namely, ① the date of the annual meeting of all executives and employees of the Defendant Company on December 29, 2010, ② the above regular meeting expenses were divided into the meeting expenses of the teams studying five tasks, including the three tasks in this case. The five team meetings were all identical, the number of participants overlap, ③ the investigation of this case began with the report of the internal employees of the Defendant Company.