A. In order to give H advice on the responsible property of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant entered into an employment agreement with H and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

The employment agreement is not a property interest but a promise of pecuniary interest. A promissory note at par value of KRW 150,000,000 (in the face of 271 of the investigation record, hereinafter “the Promissory note of this case”) does not relate to the advice on the responsible property as a security for the employment agreement.

B. There is no criminal defendant who was found to have been punished for sentencing.

The degree of illegal solicitation is weak, and the actual profit was not acquired.

Considering these circumstances, the sentence of the court below (two years of suspended sentence in January and June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and the legal principles, it is recognized that the promissory note in this case was received on the condition that F would assist in collecting claims from E for the following reasons.

1) H issued the Promissory Notes to pay 10% in return for recovery of KRW 1.5 billion in the first instance court.

The payment deadline has been extended by little time.

“The statement was made”.

Such statements are consistent with the face value of promissory notes issued by F (in the face value, No. 266 of the investigation records), the date of payment, etc.

2) The Defendant drafted a service contract with F to the effect that “The payment of KRW 150 million shall be made in return for management consulting” (the investigative record No. 280 of the investigation record).

However, after retirement from E on April 2013, the Defendant did not request H to employ the assets of F based on the Promissory Notes of this case until the seizure of F’s assets. Moreover, the Defendant filed a claim objection against F, etc. (Seoul Eastern District Court 2014No. 10502) in the lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant (hereinafter “C Eastern District Court 2014”).