The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendants are the defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, 1) The Defendants merely attempted to communicate with the LAB and H, not to have H enter into a contract with the LAB.

2) A contract with H was a structure in which no profit was generated to the victim company. Moreover, the risk of recovering fees was high due to voluntary termination, termination, etc., and it was difficult to compensate for the expenses incurred by the victim company, even if considering the fees such as management fees and large amounts of incentives.

3) Therefore, there was an occupational duty that requires the Defendants to enter into a contract with H.

In addition, since the Defendants failed to enter into a contract with H according to the so-called “management judgment” that the failure to enter into the contract with H would benefit the victim company, the intent of occupational breach of trust is not recognized, and the act that did not enter into the contract with H would cause damage to the victim company or cause damage to the victim company. It cannot be said that there was a risk of damage.

4) Defendant B was unaware of Defendant A’s instructions, and did not conspired with Defendant A to commit a crime.

B. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the point of Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust) is giving free of charge a virus inspection, franchise, wireless AP work, new network construction work, and telecommunications construction work for customer management and promotion. In substance, the victim company has the characteristic of discounting part of the cost of overall telecommunications station and opening construction work to attract customers. As such, where Defendant A receives separate cost for services provided to customers free of charge from the victim company, the victim company did not directly receive the cost of opening and paying the cost of work related to remuneration, and thus, the victim company did not have any practical benefits to exercise the promotional event, and the above Defendant’s direct opening and repair.