The judgment below

Of them, the occupational embezzlement part against Defendant A (Article 2 of the facts charged) and the duties against Defendant B.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the facts charged in this case differs from the facts charged in the final judgment (Seoul High Court 2014No. 66) and the means of committing the crime and the form of committing the crime. Therefore, it is not a comprehensive crime. In particular, Defendant A’s crime of embezzlement is similar to that of the crime of breach of trust, and it cannot be established as a comprehensive crime as a separate crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby rendering a judgment of acquittal on the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The part of occupational breach of trust on the part concerning the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust (Article 1(1) of the facts charged regarding the judgment on the part concerning the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust (Article 1(1) of the facts charged) is that the Defendants, who was an employee in charge of the business of the Victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, “F”), conspired to import products in the name of R from a foreign country, let F purchase them at a price higher than the reasonable price (Article 1(a) of the facts charged, or F sell the prefabricated products at a price lower than the reasonable price (Article 1(2) of the facts charged). The part concerning occupational breach of trust on the part concerning the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust is that the Defendants obtained property benefits equivalent to the difference and inflicted property damage on the victim F to the same amount as the victim F.

On the other hand, on August 14, 2014, the Defendants were sentenced to the suspension of the execution of two years for each of the two years of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (abstinence) at the Gwangju High Court on the same day, and on December 23, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the first final and conclusive judgment”).

The criminal facts of the preceding final and conclusive judgment also include F’s criminal facts: (a) the Defendants, an employee of the F, conspired to make the Company “A” and “W” practically operated by them (hereinafter referred to as “A, etc.”), and (b) import products from foreign countries, such as AA, and supply them to the actual purchasing company, such as J, etc.; and (c) the purchasing company.