All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Meritorious facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the crime of taking advantage of trust) D did not explicitly or implicitly make a solicitation in the course of paying money to the Defendant, and even if there was a solicitation, this does not constitute an illegal solicitation merely intended to secure existing rights.

B) Since the Defendant used money received from D as operating expenses for B, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful gains from the Defendant. (C) Of the list of crimes in the attached Table No. 201, May 2, 2012, which the Defendant received prior to being elected as B Chairperson, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been in the position of managing another’s business.

2) In light of the fact that: (a) the sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable and unfair; (b) the prosecutor 1) misjudgments of facts (not guilty part) the Defendant and D did not prepare a loan certificate and did not enter into an interest agreement; and (b) D did not demand the return of the money to the Defendant; and (c) the amount paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant on March 22, 2016 is also paid in return for an unlawful solicitation.

2 The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of the judgment of the lower court was also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) there was an implied solicitation that the Defendant would continue to operate food materials supply business in the name of D even if the Defendant and D were elected to the Chairperson; and (b) that the Defendant continued to maintain a simple legal transactional relationship with no legal possibility of legal protection against the Act on the Organizations of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.