The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, E branches are relevant.

1. Case progress

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of occupational breach of trust due to the violation of the policy on restricting the business area of D’s E branch franchise agreement, and ② acquitted on the charge of occupational breach of trust due to the false indication of H’s size of private teaching institutes related to H’s I branch franchise agreement, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million.

B. The Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing in relation to the guilty part, on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts concerning the acquitted part.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

In the trial as stated in the following 3.3., the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment adding the ancillary charges to the primary charges determined by the court below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

The judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts and legal scenarios are still meaningful as to the primary facts charged, and they are judged below.

3. The victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) under the revised facts charged is a company running a children’s English education franchise store in the name of “C,” and the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim to operate the Daejeon Seo-gu, Dong-gu, and Jung-gu regional headquarters (branch office) from April 18, 2012 to April 10, 2014.

Under the above contract, the defendant has been acting for all or part of the business affairs of the franchisor, such as recruitment of franchisees, maintenance of the quality of goods or services, support for, education on, and control of management and business activities of franchisees, while using the name of "Dong Daejeon District President". The defendant has been performing his/her duty of due care as a good manager in performing business affairs in accordance with Articles 3 and 7 (2) of the branch contract.