The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant, as the former duties of F, the apartment contractor of this case, was registered as the representative director of the victimized company in form to supervise the progress of the business and the execution of funds of the victimized company, and KK, the real management owner of the victimized company, was the management and financing management.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the defendant in a position of a person dealing with the damaged company.

The lower court erred.

2) The reasons for concluding a sales agency contract with the victimized company by I, I, and J are as follows: (a) the practical part is the method of so-called so-called “purged sales” due to the failure to sell in lots; and (b) the supervision is to be in charge.

This is only based on reasonable business judgment for the success of sale in lots, and there was no intention of breach of trust to have I gain unfair profit.

In this regard, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely determining that the Defendant’s act constitutes a breach of trust.

3) The amount of the sales agency fee agreed upon by the victimized company and I was set as the same amount as the sales agency fee originally presented by J, and the victimized company merely changed from J to I, and the other party to the sales agency fee was also an appropriate amount in light of the situation at the time of sales and the type of sales.

In such a fact, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby causing property damage to the damaged company.

The lower court erred.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts alleged in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court comprehensively took account of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the fourth 13 through nine 13 of the said judgment. ① The Defendant, as a contractor, exceeded the level of supervising the details of funding execution by the victimized company as a contractor.