Defendant

C. F’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant C’s total of KRW 12 million received from Defendant E from around November 11, 2009 to December 27, 2010, Defendant E participated in the tender through the introduction of Defendant C, and changed the name of “B” corporation from “T Co., Ltd.” to “B” on October 23, 2013; hereinafter in this context “B”) from “Y Corporation” (hereinafter “Y”) and “U Corporation” (hereinafter “U Corporation”) to receive a subcontract for a large amount of profits, it was merely obtained as the indication of a human audit for that case.

Defendant

C There was no express solicitation from Defendant E in connection with the receipt of the above money and valuables, and there was an implied solicitation.

Even if it is merely limited to the degree of “a request to receive the payment of a sexual gold from time to time” or “a request not to cut the sexual gold unfairly,” it cannot be deemed to constitute an illegal solicitation contrary to social norms and the principle of good faith.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of the crime of taking property in breach of trust by Defendant C, which received 12 billion won in total from Defendant E, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) In the facts charged, Defendant E stated that Defendant E made a solicitation to Defendant C around October 2009, and the U Corporation was not at all scheduled at that time, so it was impossible to make a solicitation to the U Corporation at that time.

Defendant

C In addition, although the place of solicitation from Defendant E around October 2009 stated in the facts charged as “B's main office of the steel business headquarters of the steel business headquarters of the steel business headquarters of the steel business headquarters,” it asserts to the effect that the above female factory was erroneous since it was a factory that must be developed around July 2010.

However, the place of solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust is merely an incidental element, not an element of composition.