The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of 3,000,000 won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, Defendants 1 and 50 million won, which Defendant A received from Defendant B, cannot be deemed as compensation for illegal solicitation. Nevertheless, Defendant A received illegal solicitation from Defendant B and obtained KRW 50 million in relation thereto, and the lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the charges of giving rise to breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. ① The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant A received an illegal solicitation from Defendant B, and thereby, found Defendant A guilty of all the charges of giving rise to giving rise to breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A created three copies of money borrowed in advance, which are expected to be investigated under the suspicion of the breach of trust in the future, at the time of search and seizure, and that Defendant B had the police present the money borrowed in addition, as long as the money borrowed file in Defendant A’s computer was revised on October 4, 2012, it can be deemed that Defendant A prepared the above borrowed money prior to the above date. Accordingly, the said three copies of money borrowed in the end is a direct evidence that clearly reveals that Defendant A actually borrowed money from Defendant B.

② On August 20, 2013, Defendant A stated that, at the time of interrogation of the police, Defendant A had the obligation of KRW 50 million with respect to Defendant B, while voluntarily stated his/her property status at the time of interrogation of the police.

③ On June 20 and June 29, 2013, Defendant B sent Sms text messages to Defendant A to pay KRW 50 million.