A. The sentence of imprisonment with labor (one year and ten months) of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The court below’s sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., e., e., t

2. The Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd has used an operating method that has been mobilized to receive orders from public institutions by way of a negotiated contract for construction works, and the Defendant has received large amounts of money exceeding KRW 500 million under the pretext of solicitation or mediation to the executives and employees of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation who intend to gain personal benefits by taking advantage of such operating method of the Dispute Resolution D, and has made solicitation to the executives and employees of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. The crime of this case is ultimately an unnecessary increase of the contract amount of the construction ordered by public institutions and ultimately may cause damage to the social trust in the fairness of the execution of their duties. Therefore, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with severe penalty in light of the significant social harm caused thereby.

However, it seems that the defendant reflects his mistake in depth, there is no criminal history, and that the amount received by the defendant is included in some of the amount that can be seen as a legitimate consideration for the defendant's business activity, and that the defendant paid income tax on the money in the name of the fee received in accordance with the agreement with the Dispute Resolution D, and it seems that the defendant did not clearly understand that it constitutes a crime of receiving money from the above company in return for his own business activity in return for the payment for his own business activity. The defendant's solicitation or intermediation of the owner of the project in accordance with the agreement with the Dispute Resolution D and the agreement is only one time to receive the fee, and the defendant's health is not good due to traffic accident, the defendant's wife is also receiving the fee, and the defendant's wife and his wife want to take the preference against the defendant.