All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the giving of evidence in breach of trust; 1) Da Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) have engaged in normal transactions since 2013. Defendant A notified Defendant B of his/her actual operation around March 2017 to Defendant B. Thus, Defendant A did not have any reason to request Defendant B to impliedly allow the transaction between C and F, and there is no fact requesting the request.

B) Although Defendant B wanting to retire, it is not to pay money to prevent Defendant B’s retirement, or not to pay money to Defendant C and F’s implied solicitation and payment of money. (2) Whether Defendant A did not constitute a crime of giving property in breach of trust or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment) and thus, Defendant A did not constitute a crime of giving property in breach of trust, the crime of giving property in breach of trust cannot be deemed as criminal proceeds. (b) However, Defendant A’s remittance of money to Defendant B’s account in the name of Defendant B is merely an act of giving property in breach of trust, and thus cannot be deemed as the act of obtaining criminal proceeds.

3) The punishment imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (b) The transactions between Defendant B and F are normal transactions, and even if Defendant A made an implied solicitation, Defendant B does not have an illegal solicitation because there is no obligation to take active measures against it. (b) The reasons why Defendant A paid money to Defendant B is aimed at preventing the withdrawal of Defendant B, and there is no reason to change the transaction between C and F, and thus there is no consideration for solicitation.

C. Defendant B did not have the intention of taking property in breach of trust.