All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s giving of property in breach of trust and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was appointed to the president of the pertinent private teaching institute under a contract for acquisition of the right to manage and operate the JA (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant B, and the Defendant did not make an illegal solicitation to the said president of the said private teaching institute, and the payment of KRW 1,650,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) paid to the said husband and wife was not an illegal solicitation, nor an illegal solicitation. Although there was no awareness that the appointment of the president of the said private teaching institute as the president of the said private teaching institute under the instant contract could be an illegal solicitation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As to the receipt of property in breach of trust, the O's request for the employment of his father and the talking about the school development fund cannot be deemed to be an illegal solicitation, and even if this constitutes an illegal solicitation, it does not constitute an illegal solicitation. In particular, even though the amount received from T does not constitute an illegal solicitation, the Defendant did not receive an illegal solicitation from S and T, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection KRW 90,000) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle are nothing more than the nominal president of the JA at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant received money with the deceased K, as shown in this part of the facts charged, due to the fact that there was no participation in the process of concluding and implementing the instant contract.