A. On March 3, 2010, the victim I Co., Ltd. and the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. paid the following services fees to G: (a) with the approval of the change of district unit planning necessary for the construction of multi-family housing and the housing construction project; (b) with the victim Co., Ltd. and J; (c) with the approval of the change of district unit planning necessary for the construction of multi-family housing; and (d) with the necessary urban planning, transportation plan, environmental disaster, construction design, etc.; and (e) with respect to the alteration of district unit planning and the housing construction project approval, the victim Co., Ltd. and the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) paid the service fees of one billion won to G, which is KRW 22,000,000,0000,000,000 won as contract deposit; and (e) with the establishment of district unit planning agreement (hereinafter “instant unit planning”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 20 million on March 3, 2010, which was on the date of the conclusion of the instant service contract, and received KRW 440 million on May 31, 2010. The Defendant received KRW 660 million on the aggregate of the above 60 million payment pursuant to the instant service contract (i.e., funds for solicitation as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below) and KRW 330 million are clearly divided. Thus, in calculating the amount of additional collection against the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on KRW 560 million on the amount of additional collection from the Defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, without taking such measures. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on KRW 160 million on the amount of additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2.