1. The part of the judgment of the court below guilty (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

2. The case against Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A lent expenses for educational expenses, living expenses, and participation expenses in overseas academic societies to O, T, and U.S. researchers. When the payment of personnel expenses of the researchers is delayed, the Defendant pre-paid the personnel expenses.

The aforementioned researchers transferred personnel expenses from the K University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “ Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation”) to the P et al.’s account is merely the repayment of the Defendant’s borrowed money or personnel expenses paid in advance, and the Defendant did not embezzled the research expenses.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts as to the receipt of property in breach of trust and the receipt of property in breach of trust, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the receipt of property in breach of trust and the receipt of property in breach of trust from a graduate school student rather than to pay experiment expenses or personnel expenses necessary for the class, cannot be obtainable. The receipt of money through the P’s account that is employed by the Defendant as a research professor who is not the Defendant A’s own account, and the other Defendants and AG, N, AH, and AO (hereinafter

In full view of the fact that Defendant B, etc. did not submit data on where money received from Defendant B was used, Defendant received a large amount of KRW 14.5 million in total during a period exceeding 1 year, and the fact that it is difficult to see such a large amount as experimental expenses or personnel expenses, and theme of the thesis prepared by the Defendants are similar, it is obvious that Defendant B, etc., transferred to Defendant A, and the money was paid for the convenience of the participation in the class, preparation of a thesis, and conferment of degrees.

Nevertheless, solely based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that there was no proof as to the receipt of money in return for an illegal solicitation between Defendant B, etc. and Defendant A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal solicitation in the crime of accepting property in breach of trust or the crime of taking property in breach of trust.