The judgment below

Among them, the part of acquittal against Defendant A and the part of acquittal against breach of trust shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the receipt of breach of trust against Defendant A, W representative X provided money in consideration of future orders of construction works.

Despite the consistent statement and the recognition of illegal solicitation, the court below acquitted this part of the facts charged.

2) As to the acceptance of bribe related to Defendant A’s Y, AA provided Defendant A with KRW 100 million.

According to relevant evidence, such as consistent statements, the facts charged by Defendant A may be recognized.

3) As to the acceptance of bribe related to the Z of Defendant A, the acceptance of bribe by Defendant C, and the receipt of Defendant B’s third party bribe, the AA and Defendant B provided KRW 50 million to Defendant A.

According to relevant evidence, including the fact that the statement is made by the assent of all, the facts charged by Defendant A can also be recognized, and accordingly, the facts charged by Defendant C and B should be found guilty.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A and B (the sentence of two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment for Defendant A, the fine of two million won, the surcharge of ten million won, the suspended execution for one year of imprisonment for Defendant B, the surcharge of two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment for Defendant B, and the surcharge of two hundred thousand won for additional collection) is too uneasable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts regarding the receipt of illegal solicitation of Defendant A’s breach of trust 1) As to the existence of an illegal solicitation, the term “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust refers to the fact that the solicitation goes against the social norms and the principle of good faith. In determining this, a comprehensive consideration should be given of the contents of the solicitation and the amount of the property received in relation thereto, form, and integrity of the administrator of legal interests, etc., and such solicitation does not require that it be clearly stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do8670, Nov. 26, 2009; 2010Do5709, Jun. 28, 2012). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: