The judgment below

The part of the case against Defendant A and C shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be decided by the agreement of the Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below found Defendant A, a supervisor of AH high school's axis, to receive money from Defendant B, a supervisor of AH high school's axis, as stated in its reasoning, to be related to entering the AJ, a student of AH high school's axis, into the department of AH high school's axis, and found Defendant A guilty of the charge of taking property in breach of trust (section 8 of the crime inundation in the judgment of the court below) from Defendant B among the charges against Defendant A, on the ground that it was related to entering the AJ, a student of AH high school's axis, into the department of AH high school's axis, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the consideration relationship in the crime of taking property in breach of trust against logical and empirical rules

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

A. First, we examine the guilty part of the property in breach of trust.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the court below's decision is related to the illegal solicitation that (1) Defendant B, a sports teacher in charge of the AO high school axis, received money from Defendant E, a sports teacher in charge of the AO high school axis, for the reasons stated in its reasoning, is related to the implied illegal solicitation that at least implicitly, continues to request the students of AO high school in the future, and that the receipt of money from Defendant B, a mother of AP, a leader of the AP, a team for the AP that is the team for the AP that makes it possible for AP to join the team, and that the receipt of money from Defendant C, a supervisor of U and AL high school axis, a U and AL high school axis, is related to an implied illegal solicitation in consideration of convenience in admission to the BJ AI for U's children, and that the receipt of money from W and Defendant C is related to the implied solicitation in consideration of convenience in entering the AI for admission of WW's children, and thus, it is related to the above illegal solicitation.