The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding occupational breach of trust shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the charges except for occupational breach of trust with respect to the amount equivalent to the clothes for D Delivery Co., Ltd. among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and one million won as to the offense of insult as stated in the judgment of the court below.

In regard to the judgment of the court below, the defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing, but the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, but the judgment prior to the transmission was all dismissed by the prosecutor and the defendant.

As to the judgment of the court of first instance before remand, the defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court of second instance reversed the conviction of each of the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand, and the relevant part of the judgment was remanded to this court. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed.

2) Since the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the offense of insult among the guilty part of the judgment of the court below in the scope of the judgment of this court is separated and confirmed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part concerning occupational breach of trust against the

2. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Fact misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles on the production of J clothes 43,000 punishment, the Defendant provided “production guidance” and, in return, received fees of KRW 1,000 per punishment.

Since the representative director of FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) reported in advance to G and obtained permission, and did an act as stated in this part of the facts charged within the scope of delegation, it cannot be deemed as a violation of duties.

Even if there was a violation of the defendant's duty

Even if such damage was inflicted on the victim

Since it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.