The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles prevents the victim’s company from acquiring a claim amounting to KRW 75,283,00 from the customer, and the victim’s company’s profit gained from the transaction was merely a broker for a mere fact after the crime was committed.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which held that there is no proof of a crime as to the fact that the victim suffered property damage equivalent to the amount of 75,283,000 won due to the defendant's breach of trust.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (a fine of five million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged in violation of the duties as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant obtained a total of 10 times the benefit of re-payment equivalent to 75,283,000 won, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the judgment of the court below, and suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount to the victim company.

B. Determination 1 on the existence of property damage in the crime of occupational breach of trust shall not be based on legal judgment, but in substance from an economic point of view. This includes not only cases where positive damage, such as the reduction of property directly, such as disposal of property, guarantee or security, has been caused, but also cases where the loss was not realized due to the act of breach of trust, i.e., passive damage, even though the acquisition was sufficiently expected from an objective point of view.

These passive damages refer to the case where the increase of property can be expected objectively and automatically but such increase in property is not made by the act of breach of duty. Therefore, the property is realized due to the actual act of breach of duty and the situation of the property which has been realized in the absence of the act of breach of duty.