All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal, “illegal solicitation” in relation to the crime of acceptance of a breach of trust or the crime of misappropriation provided for in Article 357 of the Criminal Act means that solicitation goes against social norms and the principle of good faith. In determining this, the following should be comprehensively examined: (a) the contents of solicitation; (b) the amount and form of assets or profits acquired in relation to the solicitation; (c) the method and mode of providing property benefits; and (d) the integrity of transactions, which are legal interests protected; and (b) the solicitation does not necessarily need to be explicitly or explicitly made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2165, Apr. 9, 200; 2008Do9602, Dec. 24, 2008). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the directors of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) did not receive any unlawful solicitation from the Defendant’s director, who was a director of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”); and (c) did not accept such solicitation from the Plaintiff’s new request.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding illegal solicitation and payment in breach of trust, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

B. As to the second ground of appeal, this part of the ground of appeal is that Defendant A received KRW 100 million each time of KRW 33 and 4 of the crime sight table (1) as indicated in the judgment below from Defendant B.

The purport that the judgment of the court below which made the judgment of the court below is erroneous, but it is true.