The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's receipt of 5 million won from F by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is merely a pretext of expenses and not a solicitation.

Furthermore, it is necessary for the defendant to employ a person who can be engaged in full-time work of the D Association as a regular manager, and to employ a F who has been engaged in the business of the E Association for not less than 20 years, as a regular manager, is not in violation of social rules or in violation of the principle of good faith and good faith, so it cannot be viewed as an illegal solicitation.

Nevertheless, the lower court which recognized the instant facts charged erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 5 million won, the additional collection of 5 million won, and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not necessarily require that the “illegal solicitation” constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust. If it is against social rules or the principle of trust and good faith, it is sufficient to determine it, it should comprehensively consider the contents of solicitation, the amount of compensation related thereto, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, and it does not necessarily require that solicitation is explicitly made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5628, Sept. 9, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court (in particular, F consistent statements and G’s statements supporting them, and paper copies, etc.), according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, F, who retired from the E Association for about 22 years, shall have to hear the opinion that DF would have been able to be employed by G, a general executive director of G, who was working at the D Association’s association (hereinafter referred to as “D Association”), and shall have requested employment of the Defendant 500.