The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

393,719,060 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The money that the Defendant received in this case by mistake is the price for the Defendant’s normal agency business activities under an agency contract concluded between the Defendant and P, or the two companies divide the exclusive area to avoid excessive competition, and the agreement that the Defendant shall pay the fee to the Defendant under a contract concluded in the exclusive area of each company is not received as the price for solicitation and arrangement for the public official’s business affairs.

2) The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did not fully recognize that one’s act was legally prohibited, and there was a justifiable reason for such mistake.

3) The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, additional collection) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and found the Defendant’s behavior to conclude the instant contract, such as the Defendant’s activities to enter into the instant contract through public officials, etc., that the Defendant solicited, arranged, and received the instant money on the pretext of the Defendant’s activities, not the normal agency’s business activities, but the public official’s business activities.

Unless there is a justifiable reason, the defendant cannot be exempted from his/her criminal liability on the ground that he/she is aware that his/her act is legally prohibited, and there is a justifiable reason for the defendant.

Since there is no basis to determine the person, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

3. The crime of this case, which judged unfair sentencing by both parties, is that the defendant received money and valuables on the ground of a pro-friendly relationship among public officials, and such crime is fair and fair in the local government’s contract procedure.