The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: “G Co., Ltd. (Representative H)” located in the F of Gyeongnam-gun, and as a company responsible for steel processing set-off work, the company was in charge of overall work for factory expansion work worth KRW 212.5 million of the construction cost of the site for the above G Co., Ltd.; and the Defendant is the representative of “I”, a construction company.

The Defendant, through his employee J, made an illegal solicitation to the employees E of the said G Co., Ltd., a contractor for the construction project, “a request is made to permit the payment of construction works to be well made and the next other construction works to be received,” and 5,000,000 won by the agricultural bank passbook in the name of E on February 21, 2013, under the pretext of the case cost.

3. 13. Each remittance of KRW 3,000,000 to the same passbook was granted in total amount of KRW 8,000,000.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only made a solicitation to E through J, and even if so, made such solicitation.

Even if the crime of giving property in breach of trust cannot be deemed to be an illegal solicitation, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3. The facts charged of the instant case premised on the premise that the J’s solicitation, such as the written request, is an illegal solicitation that is required in the crime of giving or receiving property in breach of trust. In the crime of giving or receiving property in breach of trust, an illegal solicitation refers to the solicitation that goes against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith. In determining this, a comprehensive consideration of the content of the solicitation and the amount of the property received or provided in relation thereto, form, and integrity of transactions, which

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do167, Dec. 20, 1988). In accordance with the above charged facts, the request made by J to E for the employees of the contractor of the construction project may be made to ensure that the construction cost would be easily paid, and that the request would be made to receive any other construction work.

However, the construction contract is based on the contract.