The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles (with regard to occupational breach of trust), when the defendant served as the representative director of the victim company D (hereinafter “victim”) and issues two copies of the Promissory Notes in which each damaged company, payee B, par value, and due date is paid at sight, respectively, and the notary public commissions each of the three comprehensive law firms to prepare and deliver the authentic copy of the authentic copy of the Promissory Notes 2 above from the three comprehensive law firms, is invalid as an abuse of the representative authority of the victimized company, and thereby, the injured company suffered property damage.

Since it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of damage or that there was a risk of damage, each act described in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below does not constitute a

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged as to each occupational breach of trust is that the Defendant was the representative of the damaged company of the liquor wholesale business from March 23, 2009 to September 25, 2012, and the Defendant: (a) was a middle school dong B; (b) was requested by the victimized company to prepare and request a promissory note with a purport to impose false debt as if the victimized company borrowed money from B to obtain the same easily; and (c) obtained B’s consent; (d) around January 17, 2012, the 141-3 notary public of the 141-3, Dong Government-dong 141-3, Dong Government-si, Dong Government-si, the 141-3, a notary public of the damaged company borrowed KRW 100 million from B; and (d) prepared a bearer bill with the face value of KRW 100,000,000 issued by the victimized Company; and (e) made the notarial deed by having the notary public obtain property damage equivalent to KRW 1100,2.32.