The judgment below

Among the guilty part against Defendant A and the acquitted part, the violation of trust related to the O Co., Ltd. is taken.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant was not able to obtain property or property benefits in return for an illegal solicitation from AA affiliated with W.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

A) The Defendant did not receive a contact and merchandise coupon in return for an illegal solicitation.

AA was a doctoral degree course at a graduate school where the defendant is working as a part of the university of the defendant.

AA is on the purport that the convenience of acquiring degrees is changed, and there was no illegal solicitation related to the duties of the National Health Insurance Review Evaluation Institute of the National Health Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Evaluation Institute").

The defendant, before he/she serves as a non-standing review member of the S Committee, on January 10, 2013, on the 25th of the same month, the same year.

7.5. Nevertheless, money and valuables have been received from A.

W on May 15, 2013, W W AB injection applied for a registration of medical care benefits, and the accused has the same year.

7. Only October 10, S Committee was commissioned as a non-standing review member.

For two years and eight months after the defendant received money from AA, he/she exercised influence on the registration of medical care benefits in W as an emergency examiner.

there is no evidence to consider.

Nevertheless, even if AA continued to provide money and valuables to the defendant, it can be seen that the defendant did not receive money and valuables in relation to the duties of the Council members.

B) On August 12, 2015, the Defendant completed the Defendant’s term of office as a non-standing review member of the S Committee.

Even though money and valuables are provided by A even after the end of his/her term of office, the acceptance of money and valuables after the end of his/her term of office does not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust, unless specific solicitation is received in connection with

C) The Defendant did not receive from AA the gift certificates amounting to KRW 4.2 million.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 36,973,700) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutor 1) mistake of facts.