The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The main points of the grounds for appeal are misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the facts (the fact of violation of trust No. 2) (the fact of violation of trust No. 2)] The "official subscription" which the defendant received from H is not an illegal solicitation under a stock sales contract concluded officially with H, not an illegal solicitation.

The profits earned by the defendant from the investment of non-listed stocks in the Republic of Korea is in accordance with the delegation agreement with H, and is not related to the above subscription for stock investment.

B. B. A. B. A. B., even if a crime of breach of trust was established, the profits earned by the Defendant is provided with an opportunity to obtain profits from the market price due to the increase in the share price after the purchase of the shares by the Defendant. Therefore, the profits gained by the Defendant should be deemed as “property

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, additional collection of KRW 202,612,00) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles [the point of receiving property in breach of trust under Article 2 of the Criminal Act] is established when a person who administers another person's business acquires property, etc. in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in relation to his/her duties, and does not require any act in violation of a certain duty or causing damage to the principal.

The defense counsel does not constitute an "illegal solicitation" on the ground that no particular losses have occurred to the KOB in accordance with the above subscription to the KOB.

However, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is a so-called private bribery separate from the crime of taking property in breach of trust and its constituent elements vary. Therefore, it is not determined in accordance with the above legal principles.

Here, “illegal solicitation” does not necessarily require the degree of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient that it goes against social rules or the principle of good faith. In determining it, the contents of the solicitation, the amount of relevant consideration, form, and the integrity of transactions, which are legal interests, shall be comprehensively considered.