A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts that the defendants received KRW 40 million from the Home Pussus on the side of the Home Pussus was merely received as the revenue and expenditure market development fund, and there was no illegal solicitation from the Home Pussuss on the side of the Home Pussus. 2) The defendants did not receive illegal solicitation from the Home Pussuss. Thus, even if the defendants used the money received from the Home Pussuss on their own, it constitutes embezzlement, this constitutes embezzlement, and it does not constitute breach of trust. 2) The contents of the defendants' statement made by the prosecution are about the fact that the defendants received KRW 40 million from the Home Pussussussus, and it does not constitute a confession of all the charges of the violation of trust.

In addition, even if this is the confession of breach of trust, there is no reinforced evidence to reinforce it.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the penalty of unreasonable sentencing (each of six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of one year, 20 million won is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act related to the legal principles, “illegal solicitation” means that solicitation goes against social norms and the principle of good faith. In determining it, the contents of the solicitation, the amount and form of the property received or provided in relation thereto, the integrity of the business administrator, who is the legal interest protected by the law, shall be comprehensively examined, and the solicitation shall not be explicitly and explicitly stated, but it shall be free even if it is implicitly and explicitly made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do10681, Sept. 9, 2010; 2010Do11784, Feb. 24, 2011). The lower court determined on the grounds of the above circumstances acknowledged by the ruling, and the Defendants may be held at the home flusssscoping point from the side of the home flusscop.