2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates E (F) a company consulting company from around August 2008, which is a company consulting company.

On December 2, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from H-related I under the pretext of solicitation from the Korea Exchange-Related Persons so that H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) may smoothly process the matters approved for the new listing of the KOSDAQ market from the Korean trading lawsuit at the E office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

As a result, the Defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation for the duties to be handled by the executives and employees of the Korea Exchange deemed public officials under Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions.

B. The judgment of the court below is not only unclear whether the defendant has received money on the pretext of a solicitation in light of each statement made by J, I, L, K's investigative agency and the court of the court below, and the defendant has received money under the pretext of a solicitation.

It is difficult to see that even in light of the statements made by J, I, and K investigation agencies and the court of original instance in the court of original instance, the defendant has been actually engaged in the H's listing business over two years.

Therefore, the defendant's receipt of money is deemed to have received labor or convenience in connection with the case or affairs handled by the public official, and unlike the part of this case which received money as a solicitation.

. may be appointed.