All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the grounds delineated below, the Defendants did not have any unlawful solicitation with respect to the Defendant’s duties, and the use of the corporate card (hereinafter “the instant corporate card”) of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) entered in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment cannot be deemed to be the content that Defendant A used. However, the lower court convicted the Defendants of all of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the illegal solicitation in the crime of giving rise to a breach of trust.

The argument is asserted.

1) Defendant B’s representative director of an advertising agency company (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) did not make an implied solicitation to the effect that Defendant A, who had worked for AA Company (hereinafter “A”) and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H” collectively with AA), was engaged in the merger of AA (hereinafter “H”), regarding the convenience in maintaining and concluding a contract with H and radio advertising agency (hereinafter “agency”) and concluding a contract. Rather, H sought to enter into an advertising agency contract with M.

Moreover, Defendant A approved the renewal of the agency contract with M in 2010 and 2011, but this is due to the fact that there was no competition company to conclude the agency contract. In 2012 and 2013, the period of giving and receiving economic benefits as stated in the instant facts charged, which is the period of giving and receiving economic benefits to M, did not take charge of or participate in the renewal of the agency contract with M, and there was no actual or legal authority as to the renewal and maintenance of the agency contract

Therefore, there was any implied solicitation between the Defendants.

Even if such solicitation does not go against social norms and the principle of good faith.

Considering the above circumstances, there is no illegal solicitation as to the duties of Defendant A between the Defendants.

2) Defendant .