The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was aware of the fact that he received a proposal from A for the appointment of a professor as a concurrent professor and received the proposal from A to pay the deposit to A, and the Defendant was merely 7,130,000 won, and did not give property upon illegal solicitation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may request A to recommend concurrent professors as well as 7,130,000 won in return for the request. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① At the time of the police, the Defendant sought a concurrent teaching position at the time, and the Defendant already stated to the effect that there was an enemy who requested the placement of a lecture.

② On June 20, 2013, A sent a text message to the effect that the Defendant was aware of an annual salary of 20 million won or more, and that he/she became 18 million won or more. Accordingly, A sent an additional message to A on June 21, 2013.

In addition, the defendant stated in the prosecution that the defendant should give A a 40% annual salary to the defendant for a concurrent professor, and paid A the amount of KRW 7.2 million to A.

In light of this, prior to the delivery of money to A by the Defendant, the recommendation of a professor holding concurrent posts was not finalized, and the Defendant also sent money to A.

may be recommended by professors holding concurrent posts.

It is judged to have been recognized.

③ In addition to the above circumstances, the Defendant paid KRW 7.130,00 to A’s personal account, and the Defendant only testified that he did not know where the money paid to A was used or was aware of the money entering a school, and the Defendant paid the money as a school deposit.