The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, H, F, and E paid money for reasonable remuneration or consideration to the company run by the Defendant or to perform its business on behalf of the company, and even D and G paid the equivalent price to the holder of an essential qualification certificate for the company’s performance of its business, and thus, the expense is used for the company’s performance of business, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust.

B. Improper sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of facts reveals that D, E,F, G, and H may recognize the fact that all of the instant companies did not actually work for the company. Moreover, it refers to the case where the company suffered property damage in the course of occupational breach of trust as a whole, and it refers to the case where a property damage is inflicted on the principal’s property, and it also includes not only the case where a real loss was inflicted but also the case where a risk of property damage was inflicted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17180, Nov. 26, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s determination that recognized the total amount transferred to the said persons as the damage of the victim company, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justified

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's misunderstanding of the above facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s absence of criminal records and fines exceeding the same criminal records and fines, and the fact that the instant company falls under the so-called one-called one company, and the risk of actual injury to others is relatively weak, are favorable to the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, this case.