All appeals are dismissed.

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C, the court below acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, and determined that Defendant B was guilty of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B and C on the ground that it is acknowledged that Defendant B had an intention to commit occupational breach of trust, a conspiracy between the Defendants was recognized, and that Defendant B had suffered property damage equivalent to the difference that would not have been spent if Defendant B had performed his

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the intent to commit occupational breach of trust and the occurrence of damages, and joint principal offense.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. As to the receipt of property in breach of trust, the “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust refers to the solicitation that goes against social norms and the principle of good faith. In determining this, a comprehensive consideration should be given to the contents of the solicitation and the amount of the property received or provided in relation thereto, form, and integrity of the business administrator, which is the legal interest protected,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do2165, Apr. 9, 2002; 2009Do5793, Sept. 30, 2010). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendants received KRW 500 million in return for illegal solicitation from an O corporation (hereinafter “O”) using the status of managing the affairs of the victimized company C and B, and that the Defendants received KRW 500,000 in return.