The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant did not have any fact that he met I in a restaurant near Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, on February 3, 2012. 2) The Defendant merely did not say that P high inspection chief was his own Dong book, and there was no fact that the Defendant provided I with facsimile numbers on several occasions at the time of accompanying A.

3) Therefore, the Defendant does not receive money under the pretext of soliciting a case dealt with by a public official. B. The lower court’s sentencing of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and three million won of penalty surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant B can be viewed as a co-principal in light of the following: (a) comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant conspired with A to make a solicitation for a case dealt with by a public official as indicated in the judgment, and that the role of the head of the P High Prosecutor’s Office entrusted by Defendant B was an act that contributed in essence to the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant B can be seen as a co-principal in light of the fact that the role of the head of the P High Prosecutor’s

① According to the statement of I and F that the overall credibility is recognized, the defendant discussed about the plan to detain M by solicitation with A while the defendant was friendly with P high-ranking inspector and made a request to P high-ranking inspector.

② The Defendant, by itself, thought that the P High-Tech was able to receive the money from the P High-Tech by making a request to the P High Prosecutor via Broer Y, and that the P High-Tech was able to receive the money from the P High-Tech by making efforts to detain M, and in such mind, I said that “I said that there is a person who knows to the prosecution.”

③ Although a person directly received the above KRW 50 million is A, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that he received KRW 55 million.

④ Even by the statement of the Defendants, most of the above 55 million won were introduced to Defendant B to Defendant B. The amount borrowed from the Plaintiff.