The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

from the defendant.

1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;

A. 1) The court below held that the defendant acquired KRW 300 million from the chairman Q of P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "P")'s illegal solicitation (Article 3-1 (a) of the judgment of the court below), five hundred million won from the representative director R of P Co., Ltd. (Article 3-2 (b) of the judgment of the court below), and S Co., Ltd (hereinafter "S")'s KRW 500 million from the chairman U (hereinafter "S") in collusion with A to receive illegal solicitation (Article 3-3 of the judgment of the court below).

(AG) KRW 500 million from AI representative director (Article 3-4(d) of the lower judgment).

3) The Defendant: (a) obtained each breach of trust; and (b) convicted Defendant of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to Defendant’s bid collusion (Article 4 of the judgment below); and (c) sentenced Defendant to two years of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 1.8 billion.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the collection of additional charges and unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to delete the part of the charge of the Defendant’s breach of trust in relation to AG-related KRW 500 million, among the charges of the Defendant’s breach of trust and the charges of the Defendant’s breach of trust, and the trial prior to the return was permitted.

3) Prior to remand, the first instance court accepted the Defendant’s appeal on the ground that: (a) KRW 300 million received from P and KRW 500 million received from AG shall be collected from both the Defendant; and (b) KRW 500 million received from P and KRW 500 million received from S shall be collected in equal installments with the accomplices; and (c) KRW 500,000,000,000,000 should be collected additionally; and (d) reversed the lower judgment and sentenced the Defendant to KRW 2

4) On the other hand, the Defendant filed an appeal on the ground of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the intent to obtain and additionally collect in the crime of taking property in breach of trust. The Supreme Court rejected the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the intent to obtain property in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, and the Defendant’s 30 million won and AG-related KRW 500 million were the crime of taking property in breach of trust.