The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant arbitrarily reduced the unit price of goods supplied by the victim H (hereinafter “H”) to the agencies and incurred damage to H by “afusing quantity”.

According to the above facts charged, H’s loss is “normal supply unit price - reduced supply unit price) 】 the quantity of goods supplied 】 the quantity of goods supplied.” In the case of “number omission,” it should be calculated as “the price of goods according to the omitted quantity of goods.”

Nevertheless, the facts charged in the instant case did not fully state “the date and time of supply, normal supply rate, reduced supply rate, the quantity and unit price of the omitted goods,” and the prosecutor raised a public prosecution by stating the amount remitted to the Defendant’s account in an irregular and irregular manner by K and M as “H’s amount of damages.”

Therefore, although the facts charged of this case cannot be deemed to have been specified, the court below determined that all of the facts charged of this case was specified, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the specification of facts charged, which affected the conclusion of judgment

1) The Defendant, as a large-scale sales agency, reduced the supply unit price with regular approval from the trading company upon the request for reduction of the supply unit price by K and M, which is an important customer of H, and there is no fact that the Defendant arbitrarily reduced the supply unit price.

B) If it is impossible to separately determine the supply price of the goods supplied by government offices and the goods supplied under a negotiated contract, the supply unit price cannot be determined at a price higher than the bid price. If such determination is made, H’s sales does not occur due to the agency’s failure to receive the supply. Therefore, H did not incur any loss due to the supply unit price reduction. C) The Defendant first provides K and M with “the supply unit price.”