All appeals are dismissed.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, "No. 2002No10826 delivered on December 10, 2004" in Part 13 of the 9th judgment.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on Defendant E’s taking in breach of trust

A. As the subject of the crime of breach of trust, a person who administers another’s business means a person who is deemed to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in light of the principle of trust and good faith with another person, and it does not necessarily require that a person has a right to the business in an external relationship with a third party or that the business

The ground for the administration of another person's business, that is, the ground for a fiduciary relationship, may also arise by the provisions of the law, legal act, custom, or administrative management.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, a person who has no legal authority may be deemed to have a fiduciary relationship to substantially manage another’s business, and if a person is deemed to have a fiduciary relationship to substantially manage another’s business, inasmuch as he/she acquired property or pecuniary benefits in return for an unlawful solicitation in relation to the duties that can reasonably be expected to take charge of in the future as a matter of fiduciary relationship, and subsequently practically takes charge of the duties regarding the solicitation, the integrity of the person who administers another’s business is thereby undermining the integrity of the person who administers another’s business, thereby constituting a crime of taking

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision on February 14, 2003 (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6697, Feb. 14, 2003; 2009Do4791, Apr. 15, 2010). (1) The court below did not have a legitimate authority to employ a professor of a school foundation H (hereinafter "the school foundation of this case") around June 2008, when Defendant E receives KRW 60 million from AB as a temporary director system. However, Defendant E does not have a legitimate authority to appoint a professor of a school foundation under its control (hereinafter "the university of this case"). However, Defendant E continued to convert into a regular director system from around 2005.