The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

Defendant

B The above fine shall not be paid.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant’s act of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles was committed temporarily to minimize the loss of the victim’s company in an imminent situation, such as that key human resources and customers’ deviation is realized, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit occupational breach of trust or to obtain illegal gains.

B) As the victim company attempted to suspend the balth marketing advertising business, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act inflicted damages on the victim company or was in danger of causing damages to the victim company. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) “Deficial progress” does not constitute “major assets for business purposes.”

B) Since the Defendant received “the progress situation” from the victim company for the purpose of calculating the amount of allowances, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent to commit occupational breach of trust and to obtain unlawful acquisition. C) The Defendant retired from the victim company on May 17, 2016, and thus, was not a person in charge of the affairs of the victim company, nor a person who conspireds with F as an employee of the victim company and the instant crime.

Even if there is a conspiracy relation with F, it is not possible to recognize a conspiracy relation for the part exceeding four months requested by F.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the determination of whether or not property damage occurred in the breach of trust 1 ought to be based on legal judgment and in substance from an economic point of view. This not only causes positive damage, such as the reduction of property directly, such as disposal of property, guarantee or security, etc., but also causes positive damage, such as the reduction of property