1. The remainder of the judgment below, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A’s defamation, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as there was no fact that Defendant A made the same remarks as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As to the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust, Defendant A received a personal request from H Co., Ltd. for the work related to the I Corporation’s design service, which is the victim FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

(C) Defendant A cannot be deemed to be a person who administers another’s business as prescribed in the crime of occupational breach of trust, and even if the above affairs are the affairs of the victimized company, Defendant B cannot be punished as an accomplice in the crime of occupational breach of trust because Defendant B did not participate in the conclusion of the contract, and thus, Defendant B cannot be punished as an accomplice in the crime of occupational breach of trust. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Even if the facts charged of this case’s unfair sentencing are found guilty, the materials that Defendant A left from the damaged company and obtained shall be prepared, kept, and preserved by Defendant A while carrying out design business for a number of months.