All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, first, the instant agency contract is merely a document prepared formally for the creation of a new code between the Defendant and the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”). Since the Defendant was not entrusted with the management of any franchise store from the victim Co., Ltd., the Defendant did not have a duty to comply with the duty of prohibition of competition under Article 8(3) of the instant agency contract.

Secondly, the victim company delivered the full amount of the DC fee paid by the Internet Personal Korea Co., Ltd. to the defendant as it is, and thus, the defendant did not incur any property damage to the victim company due to the defendant's conversion of the broadband.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the facts admitted by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court.

① A victim company is a company mainly engaged in the sale, lending, and management of credit card terminals and license systems (POS SYTSM, and sales timing information management systems) and has changed its trade name into “a company with limited liability in data Korea” in the last year.

The total market in Busan area (hereinafter referred to as "sast data") is the defendant, from around 2000, has been engaged in the sales and lending management business of credit card terminals in the name of "F".

② The Defendant, in accordance with an agreement with KK, who is the actual operator of the victim company, was managed by F by combining FF store code with the victim company on February 2012.