1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;

165,109,00 won from the defendant.

The summary of the defendant's appeal grounds: misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the punishment unfair: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 2 of the crime in the judgment below) / [Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes / Damage inflicted on D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "victim Co., Ltd.") shall lose an opportunity to earn profits by actually selling the omitted product. Therefore, the amount of damage shall be calculated by deducting

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that judged the whole consumer price as damages is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to property damages of breach of trust.

The sentencing unfair defendants are against all criminal acts, and they have no criminal history, and have endeavored to recover damage by paying a certain amount to the victimized company.

In light of this point, the punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

With regard to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, the term "if a person causes property damage" means a case where a person inflicts property damage on his/her own in a comprehensive manner, and includes cases where a person actually causes property damage as well as cases where a person actually causes property damage.

The determination on the existence of such property damage shall not be based on legal judgment in relation to the property status of the principal, but be based on an economic perspective (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do1095, Jun. 22, 199). The determination of this case operated a computer program as if the Defendant, an employee of the victimized company, received an illegal solicitation from the business manager manager, etc. to prevent the Defendant from being subject to inventory inspection, etc. from being subject to inventory inspection.

Therefore, if the damaged company was actually returned the shortage of stock from the business store, it can be classified as the current assets of the victimized company and evaluated as included in the company's value.