The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, since a company should not be a means to commit a criminal offense in the course of its business activities, the provision prohibiting offering of a bribe must be observed in the course of its business activities. Therefore, if a director, etc. offered a bribe with the company’s funds held in violation of his/her duties in the course of business activities, it is reasonable to deem that the offering of a bribe was made for the purpose of pursuing the interest of the other party to the offering of a bribe or for any other purpose rather than for promoting the company’s profit. Thus,

In addition, barring special circumstances, such legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a director, etc. of a company makes an illegal solicitation with the company’s funds and gives property in breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9238, Apr. 25, 2013). The lower court takes full account of the following circumstances: (a) the labor union is an organization that guarantees the establishment and activities of the Constitution and labor law for the rights and interests of workers; (b) the employer is promoting the development of the company through check and cooperation with the employer; (c) the dissolution of the labor union in the manner of purchasing the chairperson of the labor union cannot be necessarily a benefit to the company; (d) the labor union’s dissolution results in the dissolution of the labor union, as if the Defendant was one’s own company without any check in its management activities; and (e) the Defendant appears to have actively made efforts to resolve a dispute with the labor union after acquiring the management right of V; and (c) the Defendant would have thought to have been dissolved from the time of acquiring management rights with the labor union chairperson.