The judgment below

The parts concerning Defendant A, E, and D shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and E shall be sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (refluence of breach of trust) Defendant A withdrawn the victim AI training support funds embezzlement, and the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the receipt of breach of trust from K to K of the BF representative director.

Although the Defendant paid to E the same amount as indicated in this part of the facts charged, it is only the fact that the companies involved in the ND Facility Construction delivered money to E as a support payment to AH association.

The Defendant did not make an illegal solicitation, such as inducing E to be appointed and re-appointed as an executive officer of the AH Federation, attracting outstanding players to the AF Do team, and allowing players belonging to the AI team to be selected as a representative national candidate or allowing them not to be at a disadvantage in the process of such selection.

2) The lower court’s sentence (a 3 years of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 429,50,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) The facts charged against Defendant E (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) are not specifically identified in what the content of “illegal solicitation” in each case involving the invalidation of indictments F, BI, and A due to the illegality of the facts charged.

In other words, the part where F, BI, and A solicits the Defendant to be appointed or re-appointed as an executive officer of AH association or BG association is not specified in detail at any time, where any position was requested, and the fact that F, BI requested the Defendant to recommend the Defendant as a co-owner or supervisor of AT viewing NE team cannot be deemed an illegal solicitation, and the fact that F, B, and A requested the Defendant to appoint or re-appoint the Defendant as an executive officer of AH association or BG association cannot be deemed an illegal solicitation solely on the basis that the F, B, and A requested the Defendant in connection with the national representative selection of athletes belonging to the Defendant.

Therefore, all facts chargeds of breach of trust from F, BI, and A are invalid in violation of the provisions of law.