All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the prosecutor (1) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (A) as to the violation of occupational breach of trust, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the defendant, as the representative director of G (hereinafter “instant company”) of the instant company and the incorporated association (hereinafter “instant association”), voluntarily terminated the franchise agreement on the I Ka Pam (hereinafter “the instant car page”) which was concluded between the instant company and the instant association, and caused damage equivalent to the estimated sales amount, the cost of facilities invested, and the cost of the house page.

(B) As to the portion of KRW 4,930,335, which was paid as insurance premium for Q insurance among the occupational embezzlement, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts as to this part of the facts charged on a different premise, although the defendant paid the insurance premium for the personal interest of the defendant without the victim B (former name C) with the insurance premium for the defendant's insurance for the defendant's personal interest, and on another premise, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, and there was an error in misunderstanding of facts as to the remaining part except the above part of KRW 4,930,335. The court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on a different premise.

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

B. As to Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not borrow KRW 100 million from the victim B, but did not induce the victim with regard to the Defendant’s career, place of investment, etc., and even if the Defendant’s deception is recognized, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception, mistake by the victim, and dispositive act cannot be acknowledged.