The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As long as money was paid from the victim O Co., Ltd. to Defendant B, the prosecutor (the Defendant) may be deemed to have caused property damage to the above company.

The punishment of the judgment of the court below (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too minor.

B. Since Defendant AD and C had different knowledge that they will be individually used, there is no intention in breach of trust.

P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "P") is difficult to see that damage has occurred since it has been decided by itself by reviewing whether the subcontract amount is appropriate.

It is merely a passive acceptance of D and C's demands from the subcontractor's position, and there is no control over the act to become a joint principal offender of the crime of breach of trust.

Even if the judgment of the court below is found guilty, the punishment of the court below is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts in comparison with the records of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the facts stated in its reasoning, is contrary to each patent technology transfer contract entered into between O (hereinafter “O”) and the Korea Construction Technology Institute (hereinafter “the instant contract”), and thereby, the Defendants’ act was thereby causing property damage to O.

It is reasonable to hold the Defendants not guilty of the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants violated the duties of the Defendants A, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the Prosecutor.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be seen as the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, Defendant A’s subcontract amount.