All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (in fact-finding; 1) from September 10, 2014 to February 2015, the authority to either change the customer of the victimized company and make a final decision on the purchase of products is the representative director K. Therefore, the Defendant without such authority cannot be deemed to be in the position to handle the affairs of the victimized company related to the duties of the victimized company concerning the purchase of raw materials, such as smuggling, and the victimized company by changing the Defendant A’s purchase place of smuggling to G (hereinafter “G”), thereby reducing the amount of damage to the victimized company, even if the Defendant received from the above company the above company the price of the supplied materials of the previous customer, which was lower than that of the previous customer, and thereby reduced the amount of KRW 4,960,000,000,000,000,000 from September 10, 2014.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting Defendant A of this part of the facts charged.

B) Defendant A’s receipt of property in breach of trust and Defendant B’s receipt of property in breach of trust (the Defendants) are not in the position to take charge of the occupational duty to select the machinery delivery company for the victimized company, and there is no illegal solicitation since Defendant B did not explicitly request the Defendant to keep a continuous transaction. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. (2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged. (2) It is unreasonable that each sentence (the 6 months of imprisonment against Defendant A, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 million won of collection, and 2 million won of fine against Defendant B) that the lower court rendered against the Defendants is too unreasonable

B. The prosecutor (the fact-finding, the unreasonable sentencing) 1) mistake of facts (the acquittal of the reasoning in the original judgment) and the following facts charged: