The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have the duty to conclude the contract on the vicarious display of drout in the name of the victimized Company (hereinafter “instant contract on the vicarious display”). The Defendant did not have the intent to commit occupational breach of trust. In light of the background of the Defendant’s insulting act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by recognizing the Defendant’s entire conviction, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational breach of trust, or by misapprehending the legal principles, (1) concluded on the instant display agency contract: (2) concluded on the instant display agency contract between the damaged company and the damaged company as it is closely related to the damaged company, and (3) concluded on the instant display agency contract between E and the damaged company, as it is closely related to the German design contest; (2) concluded on the instant display agency contract between E and the damaged company; (3) the Defendant was a contract with which it is clear that the damaged company would have been able to yield profit; and (4) the Defendant had been engaged in other business at the time of

However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, the employees who participated in the process of developing the design still remain in the victimized company, and if the victimized company entered into the instant display agency contract, it would have been able to perform the contract. ④ The Defendant did not notify I who is another joint representative director, and ordered G to enter into the instant display agency contract without notifying I of the fact that G had no experience in performing the design display agency work before the instant case. Based on the fact that G had a duty to enter into the instant display agency contract with E on behalf of the victimized company.

The decision was determined.

The court below held.