The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the part of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) At the time, the Defendant was aware of whether the said merchant’s association can bear 10% of the self-paid amount to be borne by the construction business operator in relation to the joint projects for improving C structure; and (b) did not demand that the construction business operator pay 20% of the construction cost.

H demands the F Representative G to pay 20% of the construction cost without knowledge of the defendant, and receives the money.

(2) The defendant shall not have received illegal requests from G in relation to the receipt of contracts for C Corporation.

③ Although the charge is based on the premise that the Defendant received money equivalent to 20% of the total construction amount from G, the total construction amount is a false amount, so the premise was erroneous.

(2) The term “acquisition” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust refers to a real acquisition. Of the 20% of the construction amount paid by G to the Defendant, 10% of the construction amount paid by G to the Defendant belongs to the interests of the said merchant’s association as it constitutes the expenses for compensating for the expenses to be borne by C merchants’ associations. As such, the property or property gains acquired by the Defendant shall be limited to the

(However, as examined below, the amendment to the bill of amendment was made in the trial that reduces the amount of the defendant's property in breach of trust to the amount equivalent to 10% of the construction cost, so this part of the argument was actually withdrawn).

(1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part) of the facts charged by the prosecutor, the defendant can be found to have received money from the representative of the construction enterprise including K, etc. in return for an implied illegal solicitation related to C, such as K, etc., but the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s judgment in light of the content and nature of the instant crime of unreasonable sentencing.