The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant conjunctive charges on the following grounds: (a) erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

1) As to the receipt of property in breach of trust related to J (the lower court 2014, 2136 case), the Defendant merely has the authority to recommend a visiting instructor, and the Defendant did not have the authority to employ, thereby receiving an illegal solicitation as to the duties.

It can not be seen that the KRW 10 million received from J was an illegal solicitation because it was received as the expenses for the construction of the research institute not under the pretext of requesting to be appointed as a visiting instructor, but as it was received as an illegal solicitation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Regarding the receipt of property in breach of trust related to L (L) an incorporated foundation (hereinafter “L”), the amount of KRW 30 million in this part is the legitimate service charges that the Defendant received in accordance with the Work Convention on June 4, 2013, which was concluded with the said incorporated foundation in promoting the establishment of the department of contract upon L’s request.

Even if L, a non-profit religious corporation, does not meet the requirements for the establishment of the department of contract, the defendant was asked to request L to establish the department of contract.

This does not constitute “illegal solicitation”.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The term “person who administers another’s business,” who is the subject of the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act, refers to a person who is acknowledged to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in light of the principle of good faith in relation to another person, and does not necessarily require that a person has a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in an external relationship with a third party, and does not necessarily require that the business be a comprehensive consignment, and does not require that the business be a comprehensive consignment. The grounds for the conduct of business, namely, the grounds for the occurrence of fiduciary relationship, is the statutory provisions