Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning occupational breach of trust among the part concerning the crime of occupational breach of trust) Defendant “production guidance” as to the production of J Articles 43,000, and in return, Defendant is charged KRW 1,000 per punishment, and Defendant is charged with fees of KRW 1,000 per punishment, and is called “victim

Since the representative director G reported in advance to G and obtained permission, it cannot be deemed an act of breach of duty as stated in this part of the facts charged within the scope of delegation. Even if the Defendant’s act of breach of duty was committed, it is difficult to deem that the damage was inflicted on the victim. Thus, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the fact-finding), the defendant entered into a contract for voluntary processing with the transaction company without the consent of the victim company, and supplied it to H, thereby incurring property risk, which is the obligation to pay for discretionary processing costs, to H, a transaction company (hereinafter “H”). Since the above company's civil action is recognized as the representative director of the victim company, thereby realizing the risk, it can be deemed that the risk of property damage has occurred.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was permitted by G in relation to “production guidance”.