The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Progress of the decision;

A. The prosecutor, in collusion with Co-Defendant A, B (hereinafter “A” and “B”), filed a prosecution on the ground of occupational breach of trust in which the Defendant incurred property damage equivalent to KRW 130,297,235,00 in total to the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) by deducting the same construction as the written in the list of crimes from around June 30, 2016 (the Defendant’s participation from around September 30, 2016 to October 28, 2016) from the F Co., Ltd. established by the Defendant and A (hereinafter “F”).

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges and sentenced the Defendant to four months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution.

On the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant appealed each on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

C. On May 3, 2019, prior to the second trial of the trial, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the phrase “scambling 13 and 16 parts of the attached list of crimes”, and the trial prior to the remand was permitted with the consent of the defendant and his defense counsel on the same date.

The judgment of the court prior to the remand reversed the part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of all the modified facts charged against the defendant and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence for four months.

On the other hand, an appeal was filed on the grounds that the defendant had been found to have been erroneous by regarding the attached list Nos. 1 through 7 of the crime list for which the defendant was not prosecuted.

E. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case on the grounds that the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case was erroneous by misapprehending the scope of establishment of a joint principal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not assume responsibility as a joint principal offender with respect to the attached list 1 through 7, which was committed before September 30, 2016, which was the time when the defendant participated in the crime.

2. Grounds for appeal.