In around 2010, Asan City, while establishing a charnel house in the vicinity of C, paid subsidies of KRW 250 million to C, and the above C residents decided to purchase agricultural machinery at a village conference on January 23, 201 and supply it to residents at a low level.

In such cases, the defendant has occupational duties that should be performed faithfully in accordance with social rules and good faith for the rights and interests of residents in selecting agricultural machinery suppliers.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the representative E of D agency and from F, who is an employee of D agency, to “to select D as an agricultural machinery supplier”, and then selected D agency as an agricultural machinery supplier.

On March 11, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 2 million from the above F as a check in return for the above solicitation.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the probative value, to such a degree that there is no room for reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another’s business acquires property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and thus, it is established insofar as there is no unlawful solicitation between the person who grants property or profits and the person who acquires property.