The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

from the defendant 206,250,000 won.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the status and authority of the defendant with regard to the allocation of test quantity for certification of mobile phone size by the defendant, the specific process and method of payment of the amount received by the defendant, and the opportunity for E to deliver money to the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant received money from the defendant in return for an illegal solicitation regarding advice on the extension of test equipment from E and a request for suspension of transaction to D (hereinafter "D").

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is unreasonable.

2. The summary of this part of the facts charged is a person who takes charge of duties such as selection and evaluation of mobile phone size testing companies, renewal of contracts, allocation of test quantity, temporary suspension of transactions when the results of the test of specifications test companies, etc., while working as the radio business specification certification group of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) from March 15, 2007 to May 2015.

On December 18, 2009, the Defendant received implied solicitation from the head of D's branch office E, a mobile phone size tester in the vicinity of the Defendant's residence located in Yong-si, Young-si, the Defendant issued KRW 18,200,000 in cash, in consideration of the following: (a) “B has allocated a large quantity of test quantity to D; (b) has been informed of B's internal information so that D can have a large quantity of test quantity; and (c) has given rise to disadvantages, such as suspension of transactions, while maintaining continuous transaction relations.”

In addition, from that time until December 9, 2014, the Defendant received the cash of KRW 206,250,000 in return for the acceptance of the aforementioned implied solicitation from E on a total of 31 occasions, as described in the attached list of crimes, from that time until December 9, 2014, and acquired pecuniary benefits in return for the receipt of the said request.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Prosecutor.