The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the "illegal solicitation" refers to the solicitation that goes against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith in relation to the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act. In determining this, the contents of the solicitation, the amount and form of the property received or provided in relation thereto, the integrity of the business administrator, which is the legal interest protected by the law, shall be comprehensively examined. The solicitation is not necessarily explicitly required, but it is not implicitly

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do10681, Sept. 9, 2010; 2010Do11784, Feb. 24, 201). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the general director-general-department meeting, which is a subordinate organization of the Council of the head of a factory in D, comprised of the factory heads of factories in D, shall divide the media into two parts, and pay a certain amount to the relevant press organization as joint advertising expenses, taking into account the sales amount, etc. of occupant enterprises, and (2) advertising officers of each company in D shall allocate individual advertising expenses to the purport that “it has no or weak advertising effect in the case of joint advertising, but it does not request that the reporting was made if safety accidents occur while maintaining a favorable relationship with reporters, etc., and that the Defendant would not make a statement or increase its actual advertising expenses to the prosecutor’s.