The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (public prosecutor, mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. Defendant A was in office as the head of the development team of AS Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AS Comprehensive Construction”), and was in charge of obtaining orders from the executor, and also closely related to the project owner’s appointment. As such, the above Defendant constitutes “a person who administers another’s business” in relation to the conclusion of construction contracts and the selection of an agent for performing construction works in relation to AS Comprehensive Construction.

B. The construction of a new apartment-type factory (S Center) on the land owned by Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) was the construction of a new apartment-type factory (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the extent that other construction companies did not have any interest.

Therefore, Defendant A’s failure to comply with Defendant A’s request from Defendant B so that “AS Comprehensive Construction was conducted in connection with the above construction, and Defendant H (hereinafter “H”) who was operated by Defendant B becomes an executing agent, constitutes an illegal solicitation. If Defendant A received money and valuables in relation thereto, it constitutes a crime of giving and receiving a breach of trust.

C. Nevertheless, in relation to the selection of an agent for the above construction, Defendant A cannot be deemed as “a person who administers another’s business,” and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that “Is comprehensive construction became the contractor for the instant construction project” did not make an illegal solicitation. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. The meaning of “illegal solicitation” as one of the elements of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, which is the element of the crime of taking property in breach of trust, is not necessarily required to the extent that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and is contrary to the social rules or the principle of good faith.