The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles merely receive money under the pretext of meal expenses, food expenses, etc., and there is no illegal solicitation.

Since the money received by the defendant does not constitute criminal proceeds, it cannot be deemed that the defendant concealed criminal proceeds.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection of 33.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains property or financial benefits in return for an unlawful solicitation in relation to his/her duties, and the acquisition of property or financial benefits is just the acceptance of the property or financial benefits, and it is not required that the person be subject to an unlawful act corresponding

Here, the term "in relation to the duties" refers to the duties entrusted by a person who administers another's business, but this includes not only the original duties arising from the entrustment relationship, but also the duties within the scope closely related thereto, and the term "illegal solicitation" means that solicitation goes against social rules and the principles of good faith. In determining this, the contents and form of solicitation, the amount and form of the property delivered or provided in relation thereto, the integrity of the administrator of the business, which is the legal interest protected by the law, shall be comprehensively examined. The solicitation is not necessarily to be explicitly made, but it is difficult even if it is implicitly made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10681 Decided September 9, 2010, etc.). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the players’ parents to assist in the movement of their children, re-contracts, etc. as indicated in the facts charged.