The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. At the time of occurrence of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim E (hereinafter “victim E”) was predicted to increase losses due to the increase of the unit price in the event of cumulative loss, and the victim company was faced with a situation where it was unable to maintain the existing contractual relationship due to the occurrence of problems arising from the maintenance of contractual relationship with P, the existence of grounds for termination under the post office choice service contract in relation to the actual condition of collection agency business, etc.

Under the above circumstances, the defendant terminated the above contract in accordance with a reasonable management judgment, and changed the existing contract relationship to H to resolve the issue of penalty following the termination, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed an occupational breach of trust, or the defendant had an intention to commit an occupational breach of trust, and the defendant did not prove the occurrence of property damage caused by the defendant's act

In addition, since the defendant prepared related documents with the consent of the victim company representative D and applied for the cancellation of permission to use and benefit from state property, there was no intention to use the document.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The indictment shall be deemed ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal due to changes in indictment.

In the first instance, the prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment to change the part concerning the victim from the facts charged to E, and since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the adjudication, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if there are reasons for the above ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still meaningful.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to whether breach of trust is established or not, 1.