The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined otherwise, even though the Defendant, in violation of his duties as the head of the headquarters of the magazine’s business operations, committed an act of breach of trust in relation to “C” and “D”.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) against the Defendant is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the mistake of facts, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to obtain such benefit by an act in violation of one’s duty and thereby causes loss to the principal. Here, “an act in violation of one’s duty” includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act naturally expected under statutory provisions, contractual terms, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act expected not to perform as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4640, May 29, 2008) in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4640, May 29, 2008). In light of the fact that a person who administers another’s business has committed an act in violation of one’s duty, i.e., the act in violation of one’s duty, and that a third party acquired such benefit and thereby caused damage to the principal, there is no reasonable doubt that the lower court lawfully adopted the evidence following evidence.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

Unlike the judgment of the court below, the entrustment contract between U and the victim company is not concluded through open bidding.