The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A’s mistake of facts (guilty as to the guilty part) was an employee of the victimized company at the time indicated in this part of the facts charged; thus, Defendant was

In addition, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not have any reasonable doubt that the defendant invadedd all the damaged company's office seven times, and the termination of the labor relationship between the victimized company and the defendant at the time was unclear, and the issue of unpaid retirement pay remains, and the defendant's entry cannot be deemed as contrary to the explicit and implied intent of the victimized company. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

As to the larceny against Defendant A, the representative of the victimized company had consistently purchased equipment related to the victimized company’s business from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, with regard to the mistake of the prosecutor’s facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (with regard to the dismissed part of the crime and dismissal part of the public prosecution)

In light of the consistent statements made by the employee I of the victimized company, and the fact that the defendant A brought the hard disc at the end of the intrusion of the victimized company after the withdrawal of the victimized company, it is reasonable to view the above hard disc as the ownership of the victimized company. However, the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the above hard disc could not be excluded from the probability that the above hard disc was purchased at the expense of the defendant A.

Defendant

With respect to the occupational breach of trust against B, the injured company planning performance, such as K and L, around July 2013, and planning performance from the side of the performance production company for a considerable period of time.