A. The instant money received by the Defendants in the course of handling another’s business should be deemed as compensation for “illegal solicitation”.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (for Defendant A, six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is as follows: (a) Defendant A’s violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry; (b) the ordering person of the charge of giving property in breach of trust; (c) the contractor; and (d) the subcontractor or interested person may not acquire or provide property or property benefits in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with the conclusion of a contract agreement or the execution of construction works. “Stock Co., Ltd.” operated by the Defendant is a contractor who ordered “ Qu” ordered by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Dong-gu on June 10, 2013; and (c) the above business is a person who is an interested party B of the said merchant’s promotion committee, as the contractor bears 10% of the construction cost at his own expense; and (d) the Defendant, around July 2013, issued an unlawful solicitation to the said B to the effect that “the request of the merchant’s civil petition related to the construction work is to prevent,” and (e) on September 20, 2013, the Defendant provided cash KRW 4500, a merchant’s request.

The Daejeon Metropolitan City Dong-gu entered into a contract with L Co., Ltd. on June 10, 2013, and since the said project requires 10% of the construction cost to be borne by U merchants' association, the Defendant is an interested party of the said project.

around July 2013, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the representative director A of L Co., Ltd. to “a request to prevent a merchant’s civil petition about construction” from U.S., and on September 20, 2013 in return.