The judgment below

The part on attempted occupational breach of trust is reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. After remanding, on January 11, 2019, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years and 40 hours in prison, and a community service order of 120 hours in prison for one year and 120 hours in prison, and only the Defendant appealed.

On October 30, 2019, the court below reversed the judgment of the court below on October 30, 2019, and found the defendant not guilty of attempted occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of two years and an order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture for 40 hours for one year.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not appeal, and only the prosecutor appealed on the charge of attempted occupational breach of trust. On April 9, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the aforementioned acquittal part of the judgment before remanding.

Therefore, the remaining guilty portion of the judgment prior to remand, excluding the above acquittal portion, is confirmed as it is upon the expiration of the period of appeal without filing an appeal from the defendant and the prosecutor. Thus, in the case of the case after remand, only the charge of attempted occupational breach of trust among the charges of this case is subject to

2. Summary of grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. The Defendant had a loan claim amounting to KRW 150 million against the victim company. At the time when the Defendant transferred the above loan claim for the purpose of securing obligations against F, there is an agreement on the assignment of claim since the Defendant consented to the transfer of claim as the representative director of the victim company.

Even if there is no agreement on the transfer of claims, the act of issuing a promissory note in the name of the victim company is null and void, since the F knows that the defendant would abuse the power of representation to issue a promissory note in the name of the victim company. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that

b. (Misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles).