2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendants conspired to sell the capital gains tax to be borne by the seller, or that there was an intentional intent in the crime of occupational breach of trust, namely, awareness that the Defendants would have acquired property gains to the seller, or that there was no intention in the crime of occupational breach of trust. ① Since T, the owner of 1,322m2 before Seog City and T, its wife did not intend to sell the said land unless the purchaser bears the capital gains tax, MF would have purchased the said land under the condition that MF would bear the capital gains tax. ② Defendant A did not participate in the process of concluding the above sales contract, and Defendant A did not know that it received brokerage fees for KRW 80,000,000 in excess of the statutory limit due to the above sales contract, and Defendant A would also be difficult to view that the sale price of the said land was in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Facilities, and that the purchaser would bear KRW 21,36,000,0,00.