The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that our criminal law prohibits commercial brokerage and good offices in the public domain, and the freedom of business activities of a brokerage agent shall be restricted in the public domain, and the violation of Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act does not constitute "illegal solicitation" unlike the crime of brokerage and good offices under the Criminal Act. Thus, it is not related to the establishment of the crime of violation of Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act, and whether the defendant provided money or goods to a public official in charge or exercised influence through a friendly relationship, and the business consignment agreement entered into between the defendant and D is a typical specialized hub contract which receives large amounts of money from 10 to 25% of the price of delivered goods on the condition that the defendant directly contacted the public official in charge of purchasing the government office to cancel the supply contract, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to good offices under Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a person who receives, or promises to receive, money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official, or a person who causes or promises to give, such money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits to a third party, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won. This is for the general public to eradicate the acts of receiving money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation with a public official by taking advantage of a friendly relationship with a public official to ensure the fairness and integrity of public duties, and the reliability of the society (see Constitutional Court Decision 200, Apr. 24,