The judgment below

Among them, the part of the judgment of the 2016 ancient 907 case is reversed.

As to the crime of destroying part of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the occupational breach of trust (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine), the Defendant did not have omitted or made a false report to the victimized company regarding the progress of a new entrusted meal contract requested by I, or regarding the complaint, refusal of re-contract, or the movement of termination of the contract, etc. filed in M and P, which is an existing entrusted meal service contractor (hereinafter “instant obligation to report”). However, even if the Defendant received a proposal from I to pay food by credit card, he did not report to the victimized company even if he received a proposal from the I, it cannot be evaluated as a breach of trust since the Defendant did not report it to the victimized company.

D. Dor, regardless of the defendant's violation of duty to report and the absence of causal relationship between the victim company's property damage, the victim company and I could not conclude the entrusted meal contract between the victim company and I, and the termination of the entrusted meal contract between the victim company and M and P was inevitable.

Therefore, even if the Defendant breached the duty to report the instant case.

Even if so, there is no causal relationship between that and the damaged company's property damage.

㈎ I는 법인신용카드를 이용하여 식대를 결제하고자 하였으나, 피해 회사는 반드시 현금 결제를 받아야 한다는 입장이었으므로 피해 회사와 I 사이에는 위탁 급식 계약이 체결될 수 없었다.

㈏ M 측에서 음식의 질과 양 등에 대하여 계속해서 불만을 제기하였지만 피해 회사는 별다른 개선조치 없이 무성의하게 대처하였고, 오히려 단가를 올려 달라는 요구까지 하였다.

In this regard, when the representative of M around November 26, 2015, together with the representative of the Customer, has reached the premises restaurant, the representative of M is not properly clean.