All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. In light of Defendant A’s status and duties, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of receiving money and valuables in return for an illegal solicitation such as “maintenance of transaction” and “contestable carbon prosecutor’s convenience,” and acquitted the Defendant. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below which judged that although Defendant B received money and valuables from around 2001 to 2009 as the price for delivery with a single intention, it is not a comprehensive crime but a substantive concurrent crime, and that the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant B of the violation of trust obligation from January 13, 2001 to July 19, 2004, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts. (2) The judgment of the court below which sentenced the Defendant’s fine of KRW 3 million, even though the amount received as the price for delivery by Defendant B was not a large amount, and the period was for the long time, is unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant A, around January 5, 2001, L Co., Ltd. located in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun (hereinafter “L”).

)at the factory office, M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) around that time.

(2) The representative director’s “the active carbon inspection to be supplied by M is changed to be handled smoothly. It may be possible to continue delivery in the future.” The amount of KRW 500,00 in return for illegal solicitation was transferred to the above Defendant’s account. In addition, the above Defendant acquired KRW 77,415,500 in total on 147 occasions in return for illegal solicitation from the above date to February 10, 2012. (2) The judgment of the Defendant acquired KRW 77,415,500 in return for illegal solicitation from the above date to February 10, 2012. (3) The “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust does not necessarily require that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient that it goes against

When determining whether a case constitutes "illegal solicitation", the details of the solicitation and related matters.