The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was equipped with the ability to enter the Dog-gu Department of the D University, and the defendant was determined to enter the Dog-gu Department of the D University by F, which was under the supervision of the Dog-gu Department of the D University. Accordingly, the defendant was merely an auditor with regard to the admission to the D University. Thus, the defendant did not deliver the money in return for illegal solicitation. However, the judgment below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust under Article 357 of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or profits in return for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and the crime of giving and receiving property or profits is not established unless there is an illegal solicitation between the donor and the acquisitor. Here, "illegal solicitation" does not necessarily require it to the extent that it constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust. If it is contrary to social rules or the principle of trust and good faith, it is sufficient to determine that it is against the contents of the solicitation, the amount of the consideration related thereto, the form, and the integrity of the transaction, which is the legal interest protected by the law, must be comprehensively examined. In determining this, the solicitation is not necessarily required to be explicitly made, and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6987 Decided December 11, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320 Decided May 11, 2006, etc.). In addition, in determining whether property or property benefits received by a person who administers another person’s business belongs to the scope of a simple private case, the relationship between the person who administers another person’s business and the person who administers another’s business shall be comprehensively taken into account the motive, circumstance, and frequency of receiving property or property benefits, etc.