The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the goods supply contract of October 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) was not forged later from the F, but was prepared by determining the quantity of goods to be supplied based on the first unit price contract content. The source of KRW 237 million deposited into the account of M’s community credit cooperatives under the name of M is the F Accounting Division, not the amount of KRW 60 million delivered by Defendant A from Defendant B.

In full view of these circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, the amount of KRW 60 million issued by Defendant B to Defendant A may be deemed as consideration for illegal solicitation related to the provision of convenience, such as the payment of advance payment, rather than the loan. Therefore, each of the facts charged against Defendant A, as well as the receipt of property in breach of trust against Defendant A, may be fully convicted.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of each of the facts charged of this case on the ground that it is difficult to view Defendant A’s KRW 60 million as consideration for an illegal solicitation. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case 1) Defendant A-F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”)

Defendant A (hereinafter “H”) of the Construction Division director of the Construction Division around February 12, 2010, on the roads front of the Construction Division Office in E (hereinafter “H”).

2) Defendant B managing Defendant B’s products, such as steel bars and sn beam beam beams necessary for F’s parking lot construction (hereinafter “instant steel frame”).

(2) Defendant B received the payment of KRW 60 million in cash for the offering of various conveniences to H, such as the payment of advance payment with respect to the instant steel. Defendant B received the payment of KRW 60 million in advance in return for the offering of various conveniences. As above, Defendant B offered the payment of KRW 60 million in advance upon implied solicitation for various conveniences, such as the payment of advance payment with respect to the instant steel frame.

B. The lower court determined otherwise by the lower court.