(b) Relationship between the offense of violating the prohibition of acquiring remuneration by an appraiser other than legal fees and the offense of taking property in breach of trust.

B. Article 19 of the Act on the Appraisal and Evaluation that a person engaged in the appraisal business shall not receive any remuneration in relation to the business under any pretext, other than the remuneration determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy, is a regulatory provision for regulating the collection of an appraiser's excessive remuneration, and Article 28 (3) of the same Act, which is the penal provision, has the nature of administrative punishment. Meanwhile, the crime of taking property in breach of trust, which is a criminal punishment, the legal interest of which is the integrity of a person who administers another's business, is not related to the general law

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant does not constitute the crime of taking property in breach of trust, since he received money and received money after the appraisal work is completed, as well as did not make an illegal appraisal.

However, 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 person's business obtains property or financial gains in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his duties, and does not require that the defendant has committed a breach of trust in accordance with the purport of solicitation after its acquisition. According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, the defendant received an appraisal amount of KRW 1,70,000 from a co-defendant in exchange for a request to evaluate the appraised value by lowering the appraised value, and then prepared an appraisal report and submitted it to the Chuncheon City Mayor regardless of whether the appraisal content made by the defendant is false or not, the court below's decision that imposed the defendant on the ratio of taking property as a crime of taking property in

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to Article 19 of the Appraisal and Appraisal Act, a person engaged in an appraisal business shall not receive any remuneration related to his business under any pretext other than the remuneration determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy. This is a regulatory provision for regulating the collection of an appraiser's excessive remuneration, and Article 28 (3) of the same Act, which is the penal provision, has the nature of administrative punishment to achieve the above administrative purpose.

Meanwhile, the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is a provision punishing a person who administers another person's business in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties to acquire property or pecuniary benefits. Since the integrity of a person who administers another's business is a criminal punishment whose protected legal interest is the integrity of the person who administers another's business and the above penal provision of Article 19 of the Appraisal and Appraisal Act differs from the above penal provision of Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act, the relationship under Articles 357 (3) and 19 of the Criminal Act cannot be viewed as the relation between

Ultimately, although the criminal facts of this case are subject to the above penal provisions of the Special Act on the Appraisal and Evaluation of Land, a Special Act, the court below is merely erroneous in the judgment below without any ground in its independent opinion that it was illegal to impose the rate of violation of trust under the Criminal Act as a general corporation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)