All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not have acquired property benefits in relation to the solicitation that the above company was selected as an entrusted management company of H apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from C managing I Co., Ltd. and received from the above company as an entrusted management company of Y apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the lower court accepted the facts charged of this case and convicted the Defendants. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, C managing I Co., Ltd. requested E to introduce a person who can exercise influence over the apartment house representatives' meeting of this case with the authority to select the apartment house of this case in order to be selected as the entrusted management company of the apartment of this case, and upon introduction by E around July 2009, the defendant A was living together with the above defendant Eul (the investigation record 159-160, 218-219), and the defendants received the request from C to select the above company as the entrusted management company of the apartment of this case (the investigation record 160 pages), and the defendants received the above request from C to select the above company as the entrusted management company of the apartment of this case (the investigation record 160 pages), and it was just for the defendants to use the cell phone opened in the name of I Co., Ltd. of this case and to receive the charges from C, 108-120, 200, and 30, 160, 206, 106, 3, 30,