2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① Defendant and G provided 1 million won meals at the early on March 2012 at the meeting of the first patrolmen; ② at the time, G, who was the president of the council of occupants’ representatives, attempted to participate in the bidding for the selection of the apartment security service company of this case; ② The head of the apartment management division of this case, H, as G, was selected as the security service company, and the company was revoked, determined to the effect that G, as the case was found in the management office, provided that G and the head of the Dong office provided money to the representative, and consistently stated that G, as stated in the facts charged of this case, provided 1 million won in response to unlawful solicitation to the Defendant, and that the above summary order became final and conclusive, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was entitled to receive 1 million won as a successful bidder for the selection of the service company of G apartment.

B. We examine the above circumstances, which the court below properly explained, the defendant participated in the tendering process as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives; the defendant prepared a notice of tender with the head of the management division H, etc.; the G company selected as the successful bidder by responding to the minimum price in the bidding conducted in accordance with the above notice; and the G company thereafter revoked the successful bidder on the ground that it submitted forged documents; according to H's statement, G was found in the management office and resisted against this.