The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant A’s act of leaving the environment U.S. dollars and drivers belonging to the F Facilities Management Corporation under his control to I stock company belongs to his duties.

50 million won was received in return for Defendant A to obtain a written consent for departure from employment from the environmental US dollars of the Korea Food and Drug Agency, etc., so the performance-related performance value is recognized.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the KRW 50 million was not received in return for the Defendant’s duties.

① Defendant B was in charge of an O stock company from G around September 2014.

Although investment in approximately KRW 200,000 was made in the proposal to operate after the entrustment contract for cleaning services, the project was interrupted.

Defendant

B The G demanded the return of the investment amount, but the return was not received.

② P, Q, etc. established I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) on July 12, 2016 and endeavored to select it as a private cleaning service agency from F City as a private cleaning service agency.

Defendant

B Upon filing a complaint against G due to fraud, etc., G may assist the Defendant A, who is working in the F Si Facility Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) in selecting a private cleaning agency for the cleaning service.

At the same time, we arranged South Korea.

On September 2016, 2016, Defendant A lent KRW 50 million to Defendant B with the investment funds of cleaning service companies, Defendant A retired from the Corporation and work at the company.

The written consent of the members of the U.S.A. will be responsible and recruited.

“.” The purport was “.

③ On October 11, 2016, Defendant B received a letter of performance of the return of dividends on the net operating profit of the company as set forth below from Defendant A, a letter of performance of the agreed terms and conditions, and a certificate of borrowing, and remitted Defendant A the total of KRW 20 million and KRW 70 million to Defendant A.

net profit of the company's business.