The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

9,5560,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court’s judgment convicting Defendant 1 of the charge of taking property in breach of trust by H, J, and M, even though it was not recognized as the charge of taking property in breach of trust by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine,

① According to the Defendant’s career certificate, etc., the Defendant was aware that the head of the public service division of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) was working from September 1, 201 to September 1, 201. However, in light of the Defendant’s statement of H and J representative director’s selection as a public service company and the Defendant’s receipt of money from H, J, etc., the receipt of money from H and J is a transfer, and the Defendant had the ability or influence to select the public service company.

In light of the above, the Defendant was in the position of “a person who administers another’s business” at the time of receiving money from H and J.

shall not be appointed by a person.

② H, J, and M merely delivered money in response to the Defendant’s active request, and the Defendant explicitly expressed “illegal solicitation” with respect to the selection of a contractor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the defendant is in a position that can exert influence over the selection of the contractor.

In light of the fact that H’s statement is not reliable, it may be deemed that the delivery of money by J is the meaning of audit personnel of the Defendant, an on-site employee, and that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received money from M after withdrawing the contract amount, and that it was returned to the Defendant, there is “the payment for illegal solicitation” in giving and receiving the above money by the Defendant.

shall not be appointed by a person.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, one hundred and sixty thousand won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of taking property in breach of trust by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as follows, although the charges of taking property in breach of trust are recognized by D and E, is unreasonable

① Q, the representative director of F, in the case of taking property in breach of trust from D.