Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. As to Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) the instant crime does not correspond to a blanket crime because the name of payment, amount, etc. is different, and thus, the part prior to No. 115 of the List of Crimes No. 115 of the original judgment was completed. (2) Defendant A did not make an illegal solicitation or paid money in return for such solicitation by changing the number of food recipients to Defendant B.

(B) As to the occupational breach of trust, Defendant A does not constitute a person who administers another’s business in relation to the victim company. Defendant B does not regard that the protection and management of the victim company’s property is an essential substance, and thus, Defendant A does not constitute a person who administers another’s business. Therefore, Defendant A cannot constitute a joint principal offender of the

(C) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint coercion), there is no fact that Defendant A did not force the victim to prepare a resignation by threatening the victim L. However, even though Defendant B’s coercion was implied, there is no fact that aided or aided the act.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of Defendant B (one year of imprisonment and additional collection of KRW 347 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. When the prosecutor of the amendment to a bill of indictment was at the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment to a bill of indictment to the effect that the contents of the illegal solicitation in relation to Defendant B’s property in breach of trust and the property in breach of trust of Defendant A were changed from “an excessive appropriation of food agency personnel” to “an excessive appropriation of food agency personnel or the provision of convenience in the operation of the restaurant, such as recontract for the operation of the restaurant,” and this Court

As such, since the subject of the judgment was changed, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants regarding the receipt of property in breach of trust and the receipt of property in breach of trust cannot be maintained.