The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not explicitly or explicitly receive unjust solicitation from F, and the Defendant impliedly asked the Defendant that “I create an atmosphere in which students can learn their morale, and would not suffer disadvantages related to college admission.”

This can not be regarded as an illegal solicitation.

In addition, the defendant cannot be seen as "a person who administers another's business".

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of trust, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles refers to the person who is the principal agent of the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act, and “a person who administers another’s business” refers to a person who is acknowledged as having a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in light of the principle of good faith, and is not necessarily required to have a right to do so in an external relationship with a third party. In addition, the occurrence of fiduciary relationship does not require comprehensive entrustment, namely, the grounds for fiduciary relationship, namely, legal acts, customs, or management, which may arise through legal acts and subordinate statutes, and the person who does not directly or indirectly handle another’s business, and the person who does not directly perform the business within the scope of “a person who administers another’s business” refers to the person who does not directly or indirectly perform the business.