The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

A. As such, the Defendant suffered property damage to E as much as the above difference.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant, from February 2, 2004 to December 31, 2012, worked as the film business team leader of the E E in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and was in charge of supplying products, such as films, to customers.

There are occupational duties that should not be supplied to the defendant at an appropriate price and at an unfair low price to the customer.

At the end of 2007, the Defendant established G in the name of F, the spouse of the Defendant, and voluntarily lowered the supply price of the Defendant to G to deliver E products.

On January 18, 2008, the Defendant supplied 20 products of “AFG-MXG-05 MXG 14*14(K2-054-001)”) 20 products of “AFG-MX-005 MX 14*14(K2-05)” to 28,385 won per unit, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 495,560 for G and suffered property damage equivalent to the amount of KRW 560 for E.

In addition, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 549,252,825 in total from around that time to December 28, 2012, as indicated in the list of annexed crimes, and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount in E.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant, while operating G in fact, at the same time, voluntarily lowering the supply price of E’s products from the position of the head of the film business team, and at the same time, there is doubt that the Defendant did not allow the supply of E’s products to G. However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated, are also taken into account, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone brought the best benefit to E, but the Defendant voluntarily lowers E’s products.