The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the charge of occupational breach of trust by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant, as a business employee of the victim company, provided, or sold, tools for camping as a service at a discounted price within the scope of its discretion.

The selling price of the discount was not in comparison with the objective value or market price according to the quality of the goods at the night.

Therefore, the defendant did not obtain property benefits from the buyer in violation of his duties and did not cause damage to the victim company.

In addition, the defendant had no intention of breach of trust as he provided services and sold at discount for the benefit of the victim company, such as attracting and managing customers.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to this part of the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of occupational breach of trust, thereby pronounced guilty on the Defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following facts can be revealed.

The Defendant, as the sole business employee of the victim company, offered or sold subscription supplies in an amount equivalent to KRW 386,892,909, totaling 195 times from June 2009 to August 201, 201, as shown in the judgment of the court below, to a school camping division, camping club, private camping club, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the following”) for services.

After receiving supplies from the victim company, the Defendant made a verbal report to H of directors of the victim company on the quantity and price of goods sold in the camping room, etc., or submitted a trading list.

Since most of the transaction of goods in the field, such as the field room, etc. was conducted on credit, the victim company is selling the goods in accordance with the oral report or transaction specifications that the defendant received from the defendant.