All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The provision on the supplement of grounds for appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing and the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing is examined.

1) The misapprehension of the legal principle refers to " Incorporated Foundation" D (hereinafter referred to as " Incorporated Foundation"). The act of obtaining authorization under the authority of F, the president of which was bound and entering into the instant lease agreement with G and the act of receiving deposit amount of KRW 500 million as "Embezzlement for the Incorporated Foundation" is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle regarding embezzlement. In other words, the Defendant, in collusion with X, etc. from the beginning, attempted to acquire money by deceiving X, etc., and did not have any intention to keep the deposit money for the Incorporated Foundation. Furthermore, at the time of receiving the money from F’s passbook, the Defendant was not in the status of keeping the property of the Incorporated Foundation, and the possession of the Incorporated Foundation was not deemed to have been commenced. Even if the embezzlement problem of the Incorporated Foundation was committed, there was no intention of embezzlement against the Incorporated Foundation. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Public prosecutor: Error of mistake of facts and mistake of unfair sentencing (1). Requests for a defendant to receive money in return for transferring the right to operate an incorporated foundation and appointing a transferee as an officer constitutes “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11735 Decided January 23, 2014, cited by the court below, has no provision to restrict or prohibit the transfer of operating rights under the Private School Act, and there is no provision to impose criminal punishment on the transfer of operating rights.