The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not commit a breach of trust by violating one’s own duties, and there was no intention to commit a breach of trust.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following facts, the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the facts, circumstances, and legal principles acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant attempted to commit an act of breach of trust in violation of his/her duty, but the Defendant committed an attempted act of breach of trust, but

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

On November 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around November 7, 2012, in the presence of related parties such as E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) such as the team leader; (b) provided a summary point data prepared in the name of E Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter “I”) to which the Defendant was the representative, and explained the system improvement work of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

Then, G was to the effect that “drawing is made in the name of an I Company, other than Do Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”). However, the Defendant respondeded to the purport that he belongs to the Victim Company, but he is not superior to any other Company, while he was holding the I Company.

G was originally aware of the subject of the above pressation as the victim company, and the defendant had the data in the name of the I company as above, and caused confusion in the pressation, and at the same time, the defendant suspended the meeting with the purport that "We are no longer able to make our promise with the victim company. It will be good if we talk with the victim company."

(G) The statement at the trial court and the investigative agency of the G. In addition, on November 28, 2012, the Defendant “PLM.” from the J of E Company Product Planning Team staff.