The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The J clan (hereinafter “instant clan”) bears the responsibility to compensate the Defendant for damages amounting to KRW 1.52 billion due to the illegal act of the O, which was its representative, for the existence of illegal solicitation and whether it constitutes the consideration for illegal solicitation.

Therefore, if Co-defendant B of the lower court, at the time of February 9, 2010, applied to Co-defendant C of the lower court for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 1.52 billion against the instant clan, requesting that the Defendant not object to the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) does not constitute an “illegal solicitation” in the crime of giving property in breach of trust.

In addition, KRW 130 million paid to C is not the cost of giving up the objection against the payment order of this case, but the cost of operating a clan member to give up the objection, and it does not constitute the cost of illegal solicitation.

(2) As to whether the Defendant conspired with the criminal intent and B of the evidence in breach of trust, the Defendant did not know in advance the content of the agreement and each letter (hereinafter “each of the instant letters”) made between B and C on February 9, 2010, because it was impossible to use the 3,451 square meters in the purchase of the land in Goyang-dong, Yongsan-gu M (hereinafter “the instant land”) in Goyang-si due to health problems, and the Defendant did not know in advance that the lawsuit and the sale were conducted to B, and received reports from B after two to three days from the date on which each of the instant letters was written.

However, the Defendant did not receive a report on the part that promised to pay KRW 400 million to C among the instant written statements from B, and only became aware of such fact after giving KRW 200 million to B as expenses for parking lot use and business activity expenses.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of giving property in breach of trust, and there is no fact that the defendant conspireds with B by the time of giving property in breach of trust.

B. The lower court alleged unfair sentencing.