The judgment of the court below is reversed.

1. Defendant A shall be acquitted. The summary of the judgment against Defendant A shall be published.

2. The defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part of the instant computer equipment) are false tally examined and processed and paid money to B. The head of the Asset Management Team N is fake with B. The Defendant received a request from B that “I would be able to receive money as soon as the circumstances may be paid,” and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received an “illegal solicitation in connection with his/her duties” from B, since all the Defendant received a request from B that “I would be able to receive money as soon as possible.” In addition, the Defendant received a return of a large amount of money from B without a loan certificate to B on June 7, 2010, and such fact is also recognized by the e-mail sent by B to the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant received money from B on June 7, 2010 to receive money from B, and thus, found the Defendant guilty of unlawful solicitation and unfair sentencing (the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust solicitation and the lower court’s judgment.

B. Defendant B1’s misunderstanding of facts (the guilty portion of the charges of giving property in breach of trust) did not make an illegal solicitation only to the effect that the Defendant would have received money from the N of the Asset Management Team and the Defendant would have received money promptly. Moreover, as the Defendant could have known by e-mail that the Defendant sent to A, the Defendant deposited KRW 50 million into A’s account on June 7, 2010 as the repayment of money borrowed from A. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of giving property in breach of trust, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.