The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted with the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the Defendant received money from D in response to a request from D to the effect that “if he enters the project evaluation committee participating in the project of the management committee in the future, to change the scores,” and was registered as a technology evaluation committee member of the management agency at the time of receiving the money, and when registered as a technology evaluation committee member, there is a fiduciary relationship in handling business affairs in relation to

The defendant is the duty reasonably expected to take charge of affairs in the future by participating in the project participating in the project management committee, and the defendant participates in the project management committee.

Therefore, even though the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735 Decided April 27, 2006). The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business acquires property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an illegal solicitation as to his/her duties. Thus, insofar as there is no separate constituent requirement for punishing a person who administers another's business before acquiring another's status as a person who administers another's business, the crime of taking property or pecuniary benefits cannot be punished as a crime of taking property in a case where a person receives an unlawful solicitation before acquiring another's status as a person who administers another's business (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do878, Jul.