All appeals are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, "23,300,000 won" shall be deemed as 23,200.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records on Defendant C’s appeal, the above Defendant did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication in the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed by the ruling in accordance with Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the remaining defendants and the prosecutor's appeal shall be dismissed by the ruling en bloc with the judgment.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, E, H, and I, the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains property or pecuniary benefits in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and is not established unless an illegal solicitation is accepted between a person who provides property or pecuniary benefits and a person who acquires property.

In this context, "illegal solicitation" does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient if it is against social rules or the principle of good faith. In determining this, it should comprehensively consider the contents of the solicitation, the amount of related consideration, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected by law, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10290 Decided August 18, 201, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court confirms that the said Defendants received money from the said Defendants for the “after-marketing survey” (hereinafter “Pms contract”) under the research service contract (hereinafter “Pms contract”), and confirmed clear data on whether the aforementioned pharmaceutical companies need to conduct mms research from a medical perspective, whether the number of documentary evidence surveys is appropriate, whether the report on documentary evidence reports is composed of appropriate items consistent with the research purpose, and whether the report on documentary evidence is collected.