The defendant's appeal concerning the crime of 1-A (1) at the time of the original adjudication is dismissed.

With respect to the points of conflict (the crime of 1-A at the time of original adjudication)

Upon examining the records, this part of the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

As to the charge of taking property in breach of trust (the charge of 1-B at the time of the original adjudication)

1. The court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, by citing the judgment of the court of first instance, was in charge of exercising overall control over the affairs of the above union, such as the personnel management of union members from May 20, 1987

A. At around June 29, 1987, in the open space near the port labor franchisium office located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul. At the request of Nonindicted Party 1, the contact cause of the above union, upon Nonindicted Party 2, who was requested by the above union, transferred Nonindicted Party 3, working at the maritime liaison office of the above union, to the middle line with the highest central head office with the income in preference to other persons, the above union received an illegal solicitation and received KRW 2,000,000, which was provided as the case name;

B. On November 16 of the same year, at the above cafeteria restaurant located in the Seocho-gu Busan Metropolitan City, the executive officers of the above cooperative through Nonindicted 4, the non-indicted 6, who was non-member of the cooperative, was admitted to the association with priority over other persons, and was given an illegal solicitation to maintain the partner's position, and the money 2,000,000,000, which was provided as the case name, was delivered to each of them, and the disposition was applied by Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act.

2. The summary of the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance includes the statement of co-defendant in the court of first instance (the first instance), the statement of the witness interest (the third instance), and the statement of the Lee Young-soo (the fourth instance), the records of the trial of the court of first instance, and the records of the inspection of the records, the records of the records of the trial of the court of first instance, and each statement of the records of the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the salt interference, the non-indicted 5,

A. Co-Defendant 1’s statement at the first trial of the first instance court, the witness objection, the number of statements, the number of statements made by the public prosecutor, the number of records made by the public prosecutor, the number of records made by the public prosecutor, and each statement and judgment (Duplicate) are irrelevant to the fact that the Defendant was in breach of trust.

B. The prosecutor’s statement of Non-Indicted 2, as to Non-Indicted 2, is not a evidence that can be found to have been delivered to the defendant by 2,00,000 won at the time of the original trial at the time of the original trial. It is irrelevant to 1-B (2) at the time of the original trial at the time of the original trial at the time of the original trial at the time of Non-Indicted 1’s statement, and the contents of Non-Indicted 1’s statement are nothing more than hearsay evidence, but is irrelevant to 1-B (2) at the time of the original trial at the time of the original trial at the time of the original trial.

C. In light of the purport that the Defendant received KRW 2,00,000 from Nonindicted 2 at the time of original adjudication, Nonindicted 2’s written statement as to Nonindicted 5’s written statement, the case holding that: (a) Nonindicted 2 delivered money to the Defendant; (b) he did not deliver KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant; (c) he returned money to Nonindicted 1 after one year since he was not sexually dead; (d) he or the Defendant was living in Busan; (b) the Defendant and Nonindicted 5 were in conflict with each other within the above association; (c) the Defendant and Nonindicted 5 were detained on February 1984 and on March 2, 1984; and (d) the Defendant and Nonindicted 5 did not receive money from Nonindicted 5 on the grounds that he did not know that he or she had to receive money from Nonindicted 5’s testimony in the lower court; and (d) the Defendant and Nonindicted 5 were not in conflict with the other in Busan High Court; and (e) the Defendant and Nonindicted 5 did not have been living in Busan.

3. In addition, the crime of giving and receiving property or property benefits under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or property benefits in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and a certain act following such solicitation is not required to be performed in reality. However, an illegal solicitation between a person who provides property or property benefits and a person who acquires it is required to do so, and an illegal solicitation cannot be deemed to be an illegal solicitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do465, Oct. 22, 1985; 87Do1560, Nov. 24, 1987; 87Do1560, Nov. 24, 1987). In order to find guilty of the facts charged under Article 357 (2) of the Criminal Act at the time of original adjudication, the court below should make it clear how non-member-member 6 subscribe to it and maintain the partner's position and make a request for illegal solicitation.

4. Meanwhile, if the relationship between the defendant and the non-indicted 5 is the same as above, it is not questionable whether it is right to acknowledge the facts of 1-B (2) at the time of the original trial with only the statement of the non-indicted 5 prepared by the prosecutor, but upon examining the records, there is evidence corresponding to the facts of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the violation of trust in this part even among the evidence not admitted as evidence to the defendant against the defendant (the testimony of the non-indicted 5, the preparation of the prosecutor by the prosecutor by the non-indicted 5, and the statement of non-indicted 4 and 6 by the non-indicted 6, etc.). However, although the court below did not know the reasons why the court below did not respond to the summary of

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles as to the crime of the crime of the receipt of a breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the deliberation, and the arguments are reasonable within this scope.

The court below held on October 18, 1984 that the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3,00,000 for attack, etc. at the Busan District Court, which became final and conclusive on October 26 of the same year, and that the crime of KRW 1-A(1) at the time of original adjudication is concurrent crimes with the crime for which the above judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the remainder of the crime (the crime of KRW 1-A-1 at the time of original adjudication) is a crime after the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, and sentenced KRW 2,00,00 for the above crime of KRW 1-A at the time of the above judgment, and KRW 3,00,000 for the remaining crime, and remanded to the court below on account of the reversal of the part concerning the crime of KRW 1-A (2) through 1-B at the time of original adjudication, and the appeal as to the crime of KRW 1-A-1 at the time of original adjudication is dismissed.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)