The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the charge of giving rise to breach of trust as to H’s duties among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty on the charge of giving rise to breach of trust as to the F’s duties, the court below did not render a separate verdict of not guilty.

However, only the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below, but did not regard the part not guilty of the above reasons as the grounds for appeal. In such a case, the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal based on the principle of no appeal by the principle of no appeal by the court below is also judged to be remanded to the court of the first instance, but this part was already abandoned from the object of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8922, Dec. 11, 2008). Therefore, with respect to the part not guilty on the above ground, the conclusion of the lower judgment is to be followed, and the judgment is not separately determined in the trial.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The instant crime was committed in collusion with the wife B, which led the Defendant to a fair progress in the personnel affairs of the E Union by making an illegal solicitation in relation to the recommendation for promotion of the head of the E Union G branch of the E Union and increasing the amount of KRW 70 million.

The court below set the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, considering the following favorable circumstances: (a) the motive, method, result, increased amount of money, employment and personnel corruption of the E association, and the fact that the defendant's responsibility for the crime is not good in light of the role of the defendant in the process of becoming up to structural practices; (b) the defendant's mistake is divided; (c) the defendant's health is not good due to the age of 71 years; and (d) the punishment of the fine was imposed for 50 years prior to the age of 50 years; and (e) there is no other penalty force.