Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentencing of the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment, and additional collection KRW 100 million) against the Defendant by the public prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

Defendant

1) On March 2009, the Defendant knew that Qu University was scheduled to enter the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as Qu University) with respect to illegal solicitation and quid pro quo, and that there was no request from G to select H from the E University (hereinafter referred to as “E”) as a special skills student. On June 2009, 2009, two of the 12 persons among the 12 persons initially planned to be a special career student was a seat, and the Defendant confirmed that the course of H was not fixed through G and decided to select H based on the Defendant’s judgment.

Even according to the statements of G and K, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendant selected H in return for an illegal request.

In addition, since there is no advance promise to pay, and there is no understanding on the payment, it cannot be seen as an illegal solicitation retroactively from the fact that the defendant received money from G in the last place, and even if the defendant received money and the place of use, it cannot be recognized as a quid pro quo relationship.

In order to recognize an illegal solicitation, it should be revealed whether there was an understanding on the quid pro quo relationship. However, G and K's statements are insufficient to recognize that there is no credibility or there was an understanding on the quid pro quo relationship.

B) As to the amount received by the Defendant, the Defendant first received KRW 30 million, the second, and the second, KRW 50 million, and the Defendant’s statement in an inconsistent G is not reliable. The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the whole KRW 100 million solely with G’s statement is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act, which is related to the market, shall be another person's business.