The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) changed to the sale of donated goods by the damaged company from the donation of the donated goods to the damaged company, unlike the consultation that had been made with the damaged company, but merely sent e-mail that requested review and approval to the damaged company without explanation of the reason for change, etc., the obligation to notify the damaged company of the matters material to transaction.

The statement of H, unless the defendant has approved the sale of donated goods, is reliable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the damage company by failing to fulfill the duty to notify the sale of donated goods, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of disclosure and misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant, by failing to notify the damaged company of the fact that the Defendant would sell donated goods to a foreign country, thereby deceiving the victimized company.

The conviction was found not guilty on the ground of insufficient recognition.

1) Before receiving the instant donated goods, the Defendant “the instant donated goods” refers to the total amount of 84,257 donated goods delivered by the damaged company on January 29, 2016 and January 30, 2016.

The judgment below

The phrase “before delivery of the instant donated goods, January 4, 2016,” of the 8th page 12 appears to be an obvious clerical error of “before delivery of the instant donated goods.”

On January 4, 2016, H, a person in charge of the donation business of the victimized company, directly notified the intent to sell the donated goods of this case by telephone and e-mail, and requested the approval thereof. The Defendant from H on January 29, 2016 even before the victimized company’s transfer.