The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Violation of the law by an attorney-at-law (i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) ① The amount received by the Defendant is not received as a solicitation or arrangement for a service contract concluded by the Housing Corporation (the Housing Corporation in the present Korea; hereinafter “LH Corporation”) to promptly withdraw a proposal for designating an urban development zone in which land expropriation is conducted by the Korea Housing Corporation (hereinafter “LH Corporation”) for research and consultation, or for a request or arrangement for cases or affairs handled by the officers and employees of LH Corporation or the

Although there was no agreement between H and H to make a solicitation or good offices at the time of LH construction and Sungnam, and there was no actual solicitation or good offices, it is unlawful for the lower court to have acknowledged the implied agreement without any evidence by lawfully rejecting part of H’s false statements.

(2) If an implied request or arrangement is recognized, there is an error of law in failing to go through the amendment procedures of indictment.

(3) At the time of receiving money from H, the executives and employees of the LH corporation may not become a constructive public official, because the designation and public announcement of the public institution with regard to the LH corporation was not made.

2) Since it is not guilty of violation of the Attorney-at-law Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the amount received by the defendant is not criminal proceeds.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a 3 years of imprisonment, an additional collection of 1,380,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and mistake of facts

A. 1) The lower court’s judgment on the ground that there was an explicit solicitation or arrangement with the Defendant among the H’s prosecutor’s statements, in light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, it is difficult for the lower court to believe it in light of the H’s prosecutor’s office and the contents of the statement in the lower court to the effect that it made an agreement on the solicitation or arrangement with the Defendant.

However, the remaining evidence, such as the above H's other statements, etc.