2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the public officials in charge by exercising influence on the process of approving the change of executive officers following the acquisition of an educational foundation; (b) thereby significantly impairing the fairness in the performance of duties of public officials; (c) the purchase of money and valuables; (d) the amount of money and valuables received by the Defendant is not much much; (c) the Defendant forged and exercises a disposal document lease contract in order to escape obligations in the course of returning the money and valuables received; and (d) the Defendant committed fraud by deceiving the subscription of the medical college contribution of KRW 54 million even in 2004; and (e) the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, etc. for a year of imprisonment with labor.

On the other hand, however, half of the money and valuables received by the defendant has already been returned to H, a money and valuables provider, and the above H wanted to take the Defendant’s preemptive action for the first time in the trial, and the part of the forgery and uttering of a falsified investigation document is not realizing social risks, and the fact that the defendant is old and is not good for health is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment sentenced by the court below is acknowledged to be within the proper scope of punishment according to the defendant's liability, and it is not recognized that it is too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor disputing unfair sentencing.