All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles that the Defendant additionally received rebates equivalent to 5-15% of the tugboat usage fees and port service fees to be paid by tugboat companies and port service companies (hereinafter referred to as “additional rebates”).

(B) The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although it is merely for the smooth commercial transactional transaction, and it did not receive any additional rebates upon illegal solicitation from the above companies, and even if there was an illegal solicitation, it should be deemed that the Defendant did not directly acquire it but acquired it. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s 1) misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant deducted the rebates amounting to 10 to 11% of the aforementioned fees from each tugboat and port service company in return for an illegal solicitation that the Defendant would request the said company to assign more tugboat and service despite being entrusted by the tugboat company and port service companies with the payment of tugboat and port service fees (hereinafter “pre-paid rebates”) and then transferred the difference to each tugboat and port service company or all of the amounts to be paid to tugboat and port service companies (hereinafter “pre-paid rebates”) and then re-paid the amount equivalent to 10 to 11% of the above amount to be paid to each tugboat and port service company and port service company (hereinafter “pre-paid rebates”).

(2) Since the defendant is in a position to handle the vessel's affairs as well as D, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established in relation to the vessel's death. However, the court below acquitted all of the charges, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.