The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Article 1-A(a) of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below (hereinafter “the first denial part”).

As to the Defendant, K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “damage Co., Ltd”).

(E) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) between the shareholders of M andO, and in the case of another Co., Ltd., the term “stock company” is omitted and the remaining trade names are solely referred to.

(ii)No less than 164,916 5 Bam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam Mam

(2) The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the part of the first denial as to the crime of occupational breach of trust is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The crime No. 1-C of the judgment of the court below.

The Defendant concluded a contract for the purchase of freezing but 21025 am (hereinafter “instant freezing but” from X in the name of the damaged company, and paid the down payment of KRW 27 million to X with the funds of the victimized company. However, as there was prior understanding of M andO’s shareholders, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust against the victimized company. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The lower court’s judgment as to the first denied part is as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.