However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be the chairperson of the B-organization which professes the Busan Women's CEO meeting.

On December 2, 2018, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the victim C, who was a member of the above B organization, wishes to engage in food materials distribution business and to be selected as the operator of the cafeteria within the D organization in order to raise the business awareness.

On April 2019, the Defendant is a master at the highest level in the victim’s daily food store located near the Suwon-gu Office in Busan, Suwon-gu.

Since you play a role in acquiring the right to operate a restaurant in D premises, we first request 30 million won, first of all." On April 2019, the victim consented to the request of the victim again from the day restaurant located in the Young-gu, Busan to "120 million won in return for the case of the D cafeteria," and the response that the victim's excessive amount is changed to 80 million won. First of all, while giving 30 million won and considering the actual business rights, the victim agreed to the rest of 50 million won."

Around May 24, 2019, the Defendant drafted a summary statement stating that the Defendant would first receive KRW 30 million from the injured party in accordance with the above agreement, and that the amount to be paid after the designation of the business operator would be paid at KRW 50 million between the injured party and the injured party.

However, in fact, the procedures for the selection of a restaurant operator in the D premises are conducted over three stages, such as the grading of proposals, field evaluation, and the evaluation of proposal presentation, and each stage is examined by the public officials in charge of contracts, sanitation, welfare, and labor union, and the last stage is determined by including the preference of the general employees. Even if the defendant solicits a specific public official, he could not be arbitrarily granted the right to operate the restaurant in the premises to a specific business entity, and the defendant would have been able to receive the above money, and most of the defendant's daily lives or monthly payments.