The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

481,781,646 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) Whether the Defendant’s act of receiving money from a private goods company constitutes breach of trust, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes a person in charge of purchase (MD; hereinafter “MD”) belonging to AH Health Processing Team in relation to the Defendant’s business scope.

As a result, the planning of goods sold through home shopping, the commencement of sales of goods through TV home shopping (name, determination of whether to continue broadcasting, broadcast time programming, and planning and selection of private goods organized together with the products.

However, the defendant, as MD, was in charge of planning the goods to be sold by designating the event company, and was also in a state where it was possible to broadcast the event company, which was proposed to obtain approval from the head of the headquarters and the representative director.

In addition, the continuing of broadcasting, the organization of broadcasting hours is the business territory of the organizing team, and the planning and selection of the private goods is determined by the events company finally after the consultation of the target, shopping, and events company. Therefore, whether to continue broadcasting, broadcast time programming, planning and selection of private goods are not the business territory of the defendant.

Therefore, since the defendant did not affect the planning and selection of the goods, the defendant merely introduced the goods to be provided to the events company, but the events company selected the goods as its own judgment.

After that, if private goods introduced by the defendant were delivered, the private goods company only received certain amount of money from the defendant.

As such, a defendant's act of introducing private goods constitutes brokerage and a defendant's act of receiving money in return constitutes brokerage and acceptance.

However, there is no provision punishing the defendant, who is an employee of AH, of a private enterprise, in connection with his business, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the criminal facts of paragraphs 1 to 3 in the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act was punished as a breach of trust.