A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Whether the Defendants violated the duty of care on duty (the Defendants) merely responded to the proposal from G for non-data transaction, and the timber sold by G (hereinafter “instant timber”).

(2) Whether the instant timber is a stolen (Defendant C) is an independent business authority and ex-factory authority as the head of the site office of the victimized company, and thus, embezzlement of the instant timber sales proceeds is not the embezzlement of the instant timber, and it is not a stolen that Defendant C acquired from G, since it is not an embezzlement of the instant timber.

B. Even if the defendant C is found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (4 months of imprisonment without prison labor and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court’s determination as to whether the Defendant violated the duty of care in the course of performing duties is: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the Defendants acquired the instant timber from G at a price lower than the market price formed as above; (c) G was working for the field manager in charge of loading, unloading, cutting off, factory management, and joint management; (d) G was an employee who did not engage in the business of the victimized company; (c) G, Q, R, etc. supplied free data transaction at a price lower than the market price as above; and (e) it did not bear delivery expenses in the buying company; and (e) it is suspected that the supplied timber is a standardized product and the said market price is bound with the same package as that of the victimized company; and thus, (e) G was asked or any source is asked for several issues, and (e) it is more than the market price as above.