Around August 2014, the Defendant prepared and reported articles related to the “D”-free restaurant business located in the traditional food experience center (D). In preparing articles, the Defendant, who is in the above position, has a duty not to obtain unjust benefits or receive preferential treatment, convenience, money, etc. from related persons, such as the subject of articles, using his/her status.

Nevertheless, around April 2015, the Defendant received a meal proposal from F, a director of “D” through “D” through “D,” and accepted the proposal, and around April 29, 2015, the Defendant met F at the H restaurant of the E’s operation located in “D”. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26548, Apr. 29, 2015>

The Defendant received the F’s request from F that “I well see, if there is any problem, I would see that there would be a legitimate change, correction, etc. in advance.” In return for the foregoing illegal solicitation, the Defendant continued to receive meals of an amount equivalent to KRW 20,000 at the above restaurant market value at the above restaurant around 00:06, and continued to receive alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 85,000 at the market value at the same place, and continuously received alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 85,00 at the same time as K main office in the same Dong around 01:15, the Defendant received entertainment, such as alcoholic beverages of an amount of KRW 80,00 at the market value, from the place to the market value of KRW 185,00 at the same time.

Judgment

1. The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act does not constitute the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the relevant legal doctrine insofar as illegal solicitation is not accepted between a donor of property or profits

The "illegal solicitation" refers to a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith, so the contents of the solicitation are merely a provision.