The judgment below

The part of conviction and C's 300,000 won shall be reversed.

The defendant is punished by a fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not receive illegal solicitation that goes against the social rules or the good faith principle from G Co., Ltd., and the contract modification and the payment of the purchase price for phiphones was decided according to lawful procedures through the special meeting of the council of occupants' representatives. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a quid pro quo relationship between the amount received by

B. As to the part of KRW 2.3 million delivered or received by mistake of facts C, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant did not conspired is not reliable, and in light of the fact that the Defendant and C received entertainment from E, H, etc. or from them several times, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant conspired with C in collusion with C on duties, and as a result, acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 2,00,000 and KRW 300,000,000. 2) The Defendant’s sentence (a fine of KRW 4,00,000,000,000) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is unreasonable.

2. 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 person's business acquires property or pecuniary benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties. The term "illegal solicitation" in this context is sufficient if it does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is against social norms or the principle of good faith. In determining this, the content and amount of the solicitation, relevant amount of the consideration, form, and transaction integrity, which are the legal interest protected, should be comprehensively considered, and the solicitation does not necessarily require that it be explicitly expressed (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do536, Mar. 29, 2012).