The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who served as the representative director of C, a victim, from October 5, 201 to February 28, 2011.

On January 18, 2011, according to the Seoul Central District Court Order 2011Kadan52, the Defendant was provisionally seized the Defendant’s salary in accordance with the provisional seizure order against the claim. On January 20, 2011, the Defendant was aware that his salary was provisionally seized after being issued a written decision of provisional seizure on January 20, 201, and thus, the Defendant had a duty to prevent damage to the company by executing the payment of the Defendant’s salary according

On January 21, 2011, the Defendant violated the above occupational duties and received the above amount from the above corporate accounting staff by instructing the Defendant to pay the full amount of KRW 5,610,520 for January 21, 201.

As a result, the Defendant paid KRW 2,805,260, which is the amount provisionally seized among the above amounts, as the Defendant’s salary, obtained property benefits equivalent to the above amount and sustained damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

2. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel did not inform the accounting officer of the defendant to pay the full amount of the defendant's monthly salary after being served with the notice of provisional seizure of claims. However, the defendant asserted that there was no intention of breach of trust, since the full amount of salary was paid to the defendant by mass transfer of bank immediately after the above provisional seizure was served

In order to establish the crime of occupational breach of trust, the perception of occupational breach of trust as a subjective element and thereby the perception that the person himself or a third party acquires the benefit and thereby causes the loss to the principal. In other words, in case where the defendant denies the criminal intent of breach of trust, the fact that constitutes a subjective element of the crime of breach of trust due to the nature of the object is inevitably proved by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention, and what constitutes indirect facts in this case.