The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) Defendant A did not have received an illegal solicitation either explicitly or implicitly with respect to the duties of members of L Committee.

In order to establish an illegal solicitation by an implied declaration of intent, there is a common perception or understanding between the parties on the fact that the contents of the execution of duties subject to solicitation and the money and valuables provided to a third party are a quid pro quo for the performance of their duties. The defendant A only recommended AB as a specialized service company at the time, but did not know the fact that N Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with AB.

(B) A service contract between Z and AB relating to “vehicle, pedestrian, accessibility, and analysis of related plans due to N construction” is actually concluded.

AB’s results of the instant M business (it is essential for N to be provided from the actual party of the instant service contract from September 2005 to the 2005, the 8th underground floor, the 32th underground floor, and the 39th ground floor as part of the Seoul Central Urban Environment Improvement Project, but the urban environment improvement zone related to the instant M business has been modified since then, it was modified as above. The two buildings and two buildings, and the so-called “R building” were constructed; hereinafter the same shall apply) applied to the instant M business, which is indispensable for the service to be provided by the N to the actual party of the said service contract. At the time of the conclusion of the said service contract, AB was a hostile company capable of performing the service required by N.

Therefore, the money paid to AB is a legitimate service price for a service contract that was actually concluded and performed, not a consideration for allowing AB to pass the deliberation of the L Committee.

(C) Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, it cannot be deemed that the entire amount of service payment is a consideration for duties, and it is difficult to view that the amount of acceptance of bribe is more than KRW 100 million