The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the breach of trust due to the gratuitous transfer of patents (Article 1 of the instant facts charged) part 1 of the OE-related breach of trust (Article 1 of the instant facts charged), the Defendant, the victim HH Co., Ltd., changed the name to AE on or around February 15, 2016 and then changed to AF on or around May 11, 2016, and finally changed to D on or around September 13, 2016. For convenience, it refers only to H, the trade name as of the date of the instant facts charged, as of September 13, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “H”).

(2) The court below rejected the defendant's gratuitous transfer of a patent on the ground that there is no evidence of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles that the above act constitutes the act of breach of trust against H, even if the OOE constitutes the act of breach of trust against H, although it is sufficiently recognized that the above act of free transfer of a patent constitutes the act of breach of trust against H, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) In relation to the fact of breach of trust due to the receipt of the sales commission, the above sales commission was reported to H or the amount was deposited after H, and thus, the crime of breach of trust is established against H, and even if the above sales commission should be attributed to the OOB, it constitutes the crime of breach of trust against H, since the OOE's subsidiary constitutes the act of breach of trust against H, even if it constitutes the crime of breach of trust against H's subsidiaries.

B. X-related breach of trust (Article 2 of the facts charged of this case) in return for the Defendant’s transfer of H’s patent to X.