All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on Defendant A and B’s grounds of appeal

(a) A crime of occupational breach of trust is established in cases where a public official has a third party obtain economic benefits from an act in violation of his/her duties and has a third party obtain economic benefits, and causes damage to the State, with respect to whether he/she has violated duties,

(2) The crime of occupational breach of trust refers to an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with a principal by failing to perform, or performing, an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course under the provisions of law, the content of a contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the relevant business, etc. In addition, the crime of occupational breach of trust refers to any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform, or performing as a matter of course, an act that is anticipated not to perform, such act. As such, so long as acquiring property benefits or having a third party acquire them and causing damage to the principal, the intent or unlawful acquisition

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do3840, Sept. 13, 2012; 2009Do1464, Oct. 27, 201). The lower court determined the ratio based on the arithmetic average of the appraised values of multiple appraisal business entities under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, etc., as well as the arithmetic average of the appraised values of multiple appraisal business entities under the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which are public officials, to purchase the lower land to be used after the retirement of the President of the Republic of Korea, and to distribute the purchase price to R and the State after the conclusion of a sales contract. In so doing, the lower court’s determination of the ratio is the most reasonable.