A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) introduced the F, the H of the Procurement Office H, and the F, the executive secretary of the Safety and Security Administration, to the Head of GS Construction E; and (b) did not request or recommend the receipt of construction contracts for GS construction.

In addition, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for electrical construction among L applicant transfer projects through legitimate contracting activities, and was awarded a sub-subcontract to P, a regional company, at the recommendation of Z, a site warden. However, in the form of GS construction, the Defendant entered into an advisory contract with P, and received KRW 450 million in return for advisory activities.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the penalty of 2 years, 450 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of fact and the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the trial, the Defendant may be recognized as having received KRW 450 million from the public official in charge in relation to the orders for construction works ordered by the Gyeonggi-do and the Public Procurement Service under the pretext of solicitation or solicitation by the public official in charge.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) While denying the instant criminal facts in the prosecution, the Defendant introduced a person by introducing him/her while denying the instant criminal facts at the prosecutor’s office that “the head of the division of GS construction E, who is an entertainment figure around November 2008, shall carry out a government-funded construction work,” and changed by introducing him/her. As to L construction ordered by the Public Procurement Service to E, the Defendant was employed by J, the Republic of Korea-class public official of Grade II in the Public Procurement Service as of January 1, 2009, and was employed by the Public Procurement Service as W from October 19, 2009 to December 16, 2010. In relation to G construction, the Defendant was employed by the Public Procurement Service at the time of the safety administration.

F also stated that it was “the introduction was made.”

2) E introduces public officials to the Defendant for government-funded construction contracts, and helps them work as part of the police.