The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court recognized that there was no misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine that the Defendant did not receive an illegal solicitation from the J, and that the Defendant performed the work as a school operation committee member and a school operation committee member within the normal scope of the work entrusted to him, and that the Defendant did not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust because the Defendant’s pecuniary advantage belongs to the scope of private doctrine and did not constitute a crime of taking property in breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence that the lower court rendered (3 million won in penalty) on the ground that the sentencing argument was unfair is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles also stated the same argument and rejected the above argument in detail by the court below. In light of the court below's decision and records closely comparison, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The following facts are favorable: (a) the Defendant’s primary offender; and (b) the fact that the acquired property gains are not high; (c) the selection of school meal service providers is directly connected to the health and hygiene of students; (d) the Defendant is required to supply quality food materials at reasonable prices through fair evaluation of the relevant meal service providers; and (e) the Defendant, who was in charge of school operation members and school meal service providers, was aware of his/her position and role, thereby minimizing his/her private correspondence with the employees of the relevant meal service provider and preventing them from receiving property gains in advance.

Despite the fact that the crime in this case was committed without being aware of it, it is not good that the defendant committed the crime in this case, and the defendant has been communicating with the school meal service company in order to help the school meal service company, even if recognized, the defendant denies the crime itself and does not reflect it, and other unfavorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.