A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) at the time of early March 2009, when the term of office of the representative director of L/C corporation (hereinafter “L”) was expected to expire, the L/C representative M was expected to be sold to N on January 2009, and there was a possibility of reappointment of his/her representative director on the part of N which would have decided the appointment of L/C representative director; and (b) the sale was no longer possible due to N’s financial reasons; (c) on January 2009, the P, who had served as a key role in deciding the appointment of L/C representative director again on January 2009, made efforts to find out a counter for soliciting the reappointment of the representative director; (d) however, P did not have any solicitation counter to the appointment of the private financial business from outside the private sector; (e) around that time, the P did not have any negative opinion on the reappointment of P in the office of corporate finance management of L/C; and (e) reported the negative opinion about M/C related persons in the media’s sales process.

Since M’s reappointment cannot be denied, it was reported to the effect that “it was against the will of the O bank,” it was known that there was a negative challenge against the reappointment of M’s representative director at the O bank which has the authority to appoint representative director by deciding a candidate for L’s representative director as the largest shareholder.

On the other hand, in the above circumstances, the defendant suggested to the officer R in charge of L's publicity to the effect that "it is possible to assist the president's reappointment because he knows P well," and asked M's president to deliver the horse, and R delivered the above proposal to M.

In such a situation, the Defendant is well aware of “P” individually.

The president may be reappointed upon request from P.