The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the Defendant’s high school line, which has come closely and severally, and around June 15, 2009, the cash amount of KRW 3 million delivered by the Defendant from A was also characterized as a advance payment to the Defendant who was left before the change of occupation.

Although the Defendant was working at L Team around June 15, 2009, it was merely a team member, not a team leader, and around April 3, 2013, the Defendant was in charge of the duties not related to the assessment of the amount of damages and the amount of insurance proceeds while working at the P Team. Accordingly, around June 15, 2009 and around April 3, 2013, the Defendant was not in the position to have an influence on whether to entrust any business entity with the assessment of the amount of damages and the amount of insurance proceeds, or to renew the entrustment contract for the assessment of the amount of damages and insurance proceeds.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there was an illegal solicitation, such as the entry of facts charged, between the Defendant and A.

Nevertheless, since the court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on illegal solicitation of the crime of taking property in breach of trust and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of five million won and the additional collection of a fine of six million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it cannot be said that the credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession of a defendant in an investigative agency or in the original trial differs from the legal statement in the trial. In determining the credibility of a confession, Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be taken into account in light of the following: (a) the contents of the confession’s statement per se are objectively rational; (b) the motive and reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive and reason for the confession; and (d) the background leading up to the confession, among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, are either contrary