beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, as an employee of the victim company, supplied the printed materials produced by printing and delivering orders in the name of the victim company for the victim company and deposited the price of the goods into the account of the victim company in violation of the above trust relationship with the victim company, and did not notify the victim company of the above fact in violation of the above trust relationship with the victim company, and obtained the printed materials and profits in personal order as stated in the facts charged, and it constitutes an act of occupational breach of trust under the Criminal Act, and the defendant was sufficiently aware of the intent of the breach of trust. However, the court below acquitted the defendant
2. Determination
A. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below (1) The Defendant served as the chief of business in the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) operated by D on the second floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C from May 25, 2009 to December 29, 201, and supplied the printed materials produced by receiving an order and printing delivery under the name of the above company from each trader for the above company, and the price for the goods was deposited into the account of the victim company.
On July 28, 2009, the Defendant received an order from professor G of the F University at H University at the end of the foregoing office to deliver 2,000 copies from professor G of the F University at H University. Thus, in regular form, the Defendant issued an order to place the price of goods into the company and deposited the price of goods into the company account. However, the Defendant produced and supplied printed materials through a printing company with personal knowledge in violation of his/her duties, and received the price of goods KRW 9,530,400 from an account under the name of H, which is the Defendant’s son, and received the order to produce printed materials from the companies such as “I restaurant” over a total of 406 times as indicated in the attached crime list by December 28, 2011.