A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s Ewa trading service operated by the victim (hereinafter “instant trading service”).

(2) There is no fact that the Defendant received an order from the Defendant to hear an explanation or to introduce a designated package goods with respect to the package goods designated by the instant package goods. There is no content on the designated package goods in the employment contract entered into between the Defendant and the instant package goods. Therefore, there is no occupational duty to deliver the package goods designated by the instant package goods to the Defendant, and not to introduce any other package goods. 2) The Defendant intentionally excluded the package goods designated by the instant package goods. The customers who introduced the Defendant to introduce the other company did not intend to use the package goods, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act caused damage to the instant package goods.

3) For the foregoing reasons, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, but it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of occupational breach of trust, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (B) The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable since it can be recognized that the Defendant violated his/her occupational duties as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits and causing

1. The Defendant is a customer consulting worker of the instant database, who is an employee of the customer consulting service.