All prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The key issue of the charges of giving property in breach of trust and giving property in breach of trust is ① Whether the bereaved family members introduced the business operators to the bereaved family members in the process of concluding a funeral product contract with the head of the group fireworks, etc., and ② Whether the provision of money and goods to the Defendant A, who is the funeral home operator, is an illegal solicitation.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the protocol of interrogation of the suspect by the defendant A by the prosecution, the defendant A, who is the funeral home operator, can be sufficiently recognized that he was in the position of being delegated by the bereaved family members with the management of legal acts, customs, or office work with respect to the mediation of contracts by the chief fireworks, etc., and ② The funeral home businessman provided the money and valuables as written in the facts charged to maintain continuous and exclusive transactions with the funeral home, and eventually, the damage is ultimately transferred to the bereaved family members who are the consumers. Thus, it is reasonable to view the above money and valuables received between the defendant B, C, D, E and the defendant as the consideration for illegal solicitation.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on all the charges of this case against the Defendants on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that Defendant A was in the position of “a person who administers the affairs of the bereaved family,” and that the money and valuables received between the Defendants cannot be deemed as “the price for unlawful solicitation.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who administers another’s affairs” or “an illegal solicitation” in the crime of giving or receiving property in breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged 1 Defendant A is the Seo-gu in Busan.