A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

536,742,00 won from the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) recognized the facts of receiving money and valuables on the facts stated in the judgment of the court below. However, as stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1, as the chief of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Heavy Industries”), provided the following convenience, regardless of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., with respect to his duties, not accepting money and valuables only on the pretext of such unlawful solicitation or on the basis of such unlawful solicitation, or on the basis of such consideration, provided cooperation companies, who are interested parties, with an opportunity to prepare a letter of intent to assist in design, and provided technical assistance and production assistance, such as assisting them to jointly develop products, and received materials from the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant provided convenience, such as introducing products or projects among cooperation companies regardless of Hyundai Heavy Industries. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the punishment of unjust enrichment in light of the fact that the Defendant received money and valuables from the Defendant, and thus, constitutes an unlawful solicitation of 20 years or more, and thus, found the Defendant guilty of the total amount of money and valuables in this case.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the Prosecutor, the lower court’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust is always the content of occupational breach of trust.