Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part concerning the defendant AR, AS, BB, BC, BD, and X and the part concerning the defendant A and B among the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) Of the facts charged against the Defendant for erroneous determination of facts, the part of the charge of giving property in breach of trust to the Defendant was conducted independently by B, and the Defendant did not participate in all.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of the second instance that convicted the defendant of this part (hereinafter in this case, referred to as "the court of the first instance") and all "the court of the second instance" are erroneous in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant AR (M)’s owner of money received from U (U) U (hereinafter “U”) is each construction company that participated in the new construction of each school with shares, and the Defendant received money on behalf of each construction company as a person in charge of AV Co., Ltd (hereinafter “AV”), who is a manager of each construction company. As such, the Defendant constitutes a case where the Defendant acquired property or property benefits to another person, not the Defendant himself/herself, and the Defendant is not a crime of taking property in breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby pronounced guilty against the Defendant.

Defendant

AS (MS) The Defendant did not participate in the selection of a supplier of school facilities, and there is no fact that the Defendant conspireds with AR, which is the person in charge thereof, and only stated that AV’s on-site director, “13 million won in the statement of grounds for appeal of KRW 10.5 million, issued by AR,” but it appears that the Defendant erred in the KRW 10.5 million.

The defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of taking property in breach of trust because it was only used for on-site expenses.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

E. Defendant BB, and .