1. As to the assertion that the Defendant conspiredd with H, S, and K, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, committed the crime of taking property in breach of trust by receiving KRW 100 million from G, along with the illegal solicitation that the Defendant alone, by granting KRW 100,00,00,000, in consideration of the orders for landscaping works and convenience in the progress of the construction works, and the Defendant

As such, the amount of KRW 100 million is all reverted to the defendant.

The decision was determined.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the law of logic and experience or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a joint principal offender for public offering, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on collection, even if the property or property gains acquired by the criminal in breach of trust have been granted to another person who is not recognized as a principal offender, it shall be deemed that the property or property gains acquired have been consumed. If such an act was not carried out by the instructions of the re-owner, the whole amount of the property acquired should be collected from the criminal in breach of trust.

The lower court’s collection of KRW 100 million from the Defendant of the instant crime was in accordance with the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case because they differ from the instant case.

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