The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received an illegal solicitation that 500,000 won, which was received from D on December 30, 201 from D (crime flood table Nos. 10) so that CConstruction Offices may be selected as the designer of B redevelopment projects and received as the consideration for the said solicitation.

Moreover, since from May 3, 2010 to December 30, 2011, the Defendant’s receipt of money from D with such unlawful solicitation constitutes an inclusive crime, the statute of limitations set forth in the table of crime Nos. 1 to 9 has not expired.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the Defendant received KRW 500,00 from D on December 30, 201 from D in return for the illegal solicitation that the CConstruction Office can be selected as the designer of B redevelopment project.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the record, that is, the point at which CConstruction Office paid KRW 500,00 as above, is the point at which at least four months passed from August 17, 201 when the building design contract was entered into with B Redevelopment Project Promotion Committee. In the case of No. 1 through No. 8 of the crime list, the amount was paid every one million won from May 201 to December 2010. On the other hand, No. 9 of the crime list No. 8, and No. 10 of the crime list No. 10 of the crime list No. 9 was paid at the point of 50,000 won. The amount also differs from the amount regularly paid at the point of 50,000 won from the No. 9 of the crime list. D in the court of the court below that “No. 500,000 won during the year” was called as the Defendant’s design service-related party’s “no. 271 months after the conclusion of the contract.”

The answer that affirms the defense counsel's question, K et al. is against the defendant et al. at the Seoul Western District Court, and the defendant et al. at the B redevelopment project promotion committee.