However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant became aware of the representative F of the "E", a partner of C Viewing Public Officials D, through introduction of C Viewing Public Officials D.

On May 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested the Defendant, who had a close relationship with F and telephone conversations with C, to request the C viewing public official so that F may be ordered to place the order for C&M; (b) at this time, the Defendant agreed to receive approximately 10% of the contract amount to be received by F in return for the payment of the contract amount to be received by F.

Under such agreement, the Defendant received KRW 33 million from F to H’s agricultural bank account in the name of H, on June 19, 2015, in favor of the public official in charge of “G (the date of concluding a contract: June 9, 2015)” which constitutes “G (the date of concluding a contract: June 9, 2015)” as the contract price of the order at C around 363,813,700.

As a result, the defendant was given KRW 33 million under the pretext of solicitation or good offices with respect to cases or affairs handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the F to the Acts and subordinate statutes in the prosecutor's statement protocol;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 111 (1) of the Act, and the choice of imprisonment and punishment as an attorney at the option of a punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. It is necessary to strictly punish an attorney-at-law on the grounds of sentencing under Article 116 of the Act, taking into account the nature of the crime in this case, the amount received by the defendant, etc. However, the same sentence as the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the frequency of giving and receiving money in favor of the defendant; (b) the return of money received by the defendant; (c) whether the defendant has actually requested or mediated a public official; (d) the defendant has no record of a like crime; (e) the defendant has no record of a single crime; (e) the fact that the defendant

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.