1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, B, C, and E shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A, B, and C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. For convenience of Defendant A, B (Nam) and below, Defendant B as “Defendant B” and Defendant C as “Defendant C (W)”.

(1) As to whether the part concerning occupational breach of trust constitutes “a person who administers another’s business” (A) or “a person who administers another’s business,” Defendant C(n), D, E, and Co-defendant F, and G (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants of the headquarters” in the case of a common name of the above Defendants for convenience, and in the case of F and G, the status of the lawsuit is not separately stated.) membership recruitment, maintenance, and management are one’s own business with the aim of acquiring profits, such as more fees, from the headquarters of the O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”). There is no essential content in protecting or managing the O’s property

Therefore, the Defendants do not constitute “a person who administers another’s business” in the crime of occupational breach of trust.

(B) As to whether the co-principal is established, Defendant A and B are beneficiaries who gain profits from the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust by the Defendants of the head of the headquarters, and the Defendants, even though having been aware that the Defendants committed the crime of occupational breach of trust, are aware that the Defendants committed the crime of occupational breach of trust, and it is nothing more than the extent that Defendant N (hereinafter “N”) acquired profits

Therefore, Defendant A and B cannot become a joint principal offender for the crime of occupational breach of trust by the chief of the headquarters.

(2) As to the portion of the crime of breach of trust, even if the Defendants were partly included in the contents of the transfer of members in the process of discussing the transfer of the Defendants to N on the existence of “illegal solicitation” as to the existence of the crime of breach of trust, it cannot be deemed as an unlawful solicitation.

(B) The money that Defendant A and B paid to the chief executive officer to the Defendants on the existence of a quid pro quo relationship does not constitute the so-called Scapt cost for the leakage of membership information.

(3) Defendant A, who was sentenced by the court below to Defendant A and B with respect to sentencing.