The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

Defendant

A and.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (B) 1, among the facts charged in this part of the charges, the attached Table 2 No. 14 No. 14 was not specified in a specific time or amount, and thus the facts charged were not specified.

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

B) The non-existence of a solicitation request that Defendant B create a fund in lieu of allowing it with knowledge that Defendant B would create a fund by illegal means prior to this point, and it does not receive an illegal solicitation from Defendant B.

Nevertheless, Defendant A received illegal solicitation from Defendant B.

The lower court, which determined the person, erred by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts.

2) The executive officers and employees of theJ (hereinafter “J”) are the Defendant’s preference to the Defendant A, Defendant A recognized from the beginning of the investigation into the crime of taking property in breach of trust, Defendant A did not demand money to Q, Defendant A provided services to Q without pay money to Q by requesting Q, and Defendant B requested money from Q. The need not handle accounts, and the money to be used for theJ is used as business expenses of the J employee, and the money received from Defendant B was used as an unlawful act; Defendant A did not specially engage in any unlawful act; Defendant A performed a special duty by hiding for the Republic of Korea for a long time; Defendant A has not been punished for a long time; Defendant A has no record of being punished for a long time; Defendant A’s social relationship with Defendant A’s family members’ livelihood with Defendant A through imprisonment with prison labor for a limited period of time; and Defendant A’s family members’ livelihood with prison labor for 20 years and 4 years; and the lower court clearly considered the following: (a) Defendant A’s collection of additional charges.