1. Examining the grounds of appeal as to Article 1 of the facts charged in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s determination that the act of trading philopon on January 24, 2011 among the facts charged in the instant case was found guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by exceeding the bounds of statutes.

2. As to the ground of appeal on Article 2 of the facts charged

A. On February 201, the summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant received KRW 2 million from D in return for the request from the Busan and Gyeongnam National Assembly on February 201, 201 for additional trading of phiphones from D, but failed to provide phiphones. The lower court found the Defendant to have committed an act as stated in the facts charged and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that such an act constituted an attempted transaction of phiphones.

B. Even if the Defendant received money from the person who intends to purchase the phiphones upon the request to seek the phiphones, if the Defendant was in the status of holding or acquiring the phiphones at the time, or was possible, and not simply received money under the pretext of the price upon the request to request to seek the phiphones, it cannot be deemed that the commencement of the execution of the phiphones is not the case where the Defendant was merely paid the money under the pretext of the price.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2392 Decided May 29, 2008, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant received a request from a policeman D to seek a philopon on February 2011 and received KRW 2 million under the pretext of the price.