W, X and inspection appeal are all dismissed.

A. Defendant X (legal scenario) is not a person who deals with another person's business regarding setting problems for promotion examination, and thus, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established. Defendant X did not have an identity to commit the crime of taking property in breach of trust in sequence with AK and N, and did not have an intention.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

C. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts against Defendant I, K, Q, and U, Defendant I, K, Q, and U are recognized as having given money to an applicant who is aware of the fact that the applicant was entrusted to an external specialized institution without directly preparing the promotion examination for the AG Corporation, since the applicant who works for a specialized institution in charge of preparing the dolusor promotion examination was aware of the leakage of the examination issue out by unlawful means, the criminal intent can be sufficiently recognized. 2) Defendant X of mistake of facts against Defendant X was successful in the third grade examination after receiving the answer sheet in W around 2007. Since it was recognized that a person who had worked for an institution in charge of preparing the promotion examination for the AG Corporation has already been aware of the leakage of the examination issue out by unlawful means in 207, it is recognized as having been aware that it was leaked by unlawful means even if having received the relevant money from the K in 209, and that he received the money in collusion with W and acquired the property in collusion.

3) As to the Defendants, the sentence of the lower court (an unfair form of punishment) (an imprisonment with prison labor for a year and April, three years of suspended sentence, and the remaining Defendants: the fine of KRW 10,000,000 for each of the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The general provisions of the Criminal Act on accomplices cannot be applied to Defendant X’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the 1-related legal doctrine regarding an accomplice, which provides for an individual crime.