The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant was entitled to use the corporate card of this case, and the large portion of the use of the corporate card of this case cannot be deemed to be unrelated to the defendant's commuting to and from work as the main cost of the vehicle. Since other private use was made with the consent of I, the actual operator of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), the defendant was guilty of the charge of this case, although he did not have any intention of breach of trust, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (five million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the corporation, its representative director, or its actual operator, and the largest shareholder cannot be the same person as the existence of a separate corporate personality, and the damage of the corporation is always equal to the representative director, its actual operator, and the largest shareholder. Thus, if the representative director, its actual operator, and its largest shareholder, even if they committed an act of breach of duty which inflicts damage on the corporation itself, they shall be liable for the crime of breach of trust. Therefore, where an officer or employee of the corporation acquired pecuniary benefits or made a third party obtain such benefits by an act in violation of his/her duties and causes damage to the corporation, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if he/she actually obtained the understanding of the representative director, the actual operator, and the largest shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6335, Mar. 10, 201) and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged as follows: