The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

139,512,00 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) As to the receipt of money and valuables in breach of trust with E, part of the amount of money and valuables paid out by the Defendant to E is excluded from the amount of money and valuables received. Since part of the amount of money and valuables at the end of 10,12 are delivered to a third party at the request of E, the amount of money and valuables should be excluded from the amount of money and valuables received.

B) The total amount of KRW 8,892,94, which was paid in the name of meritorious and miscellaneous expenses, out of the amount of money and other valuables received at a net time (1), 1, 4 through 8, and 1, 3, and 6,000 of the amount of money and other valuables received at a net time, is paid twice to E and G as a matter of C’s payment system, and thus, C is subject to a return, and the Defendant is not deemed to have received in return for an unlawful solicitation, since all of them are used as expenses at the construction site.

2) On the receipt of entertainment in breach of trust, there was only the first place to divide mutual personnel after the conclusion of a collaborative company’s contract with each of the titles Nos. 3 and 4 of the crime list (3) and (4) and the first place to receive entertainment in breach of trust.

The domestic illegal solicitation was made.

Even if there was a total of six persons at the time, so that the defendant's property profits acquired are excessive to 275,000 won each, b) the net 2 through 5 times in the sight table (3) of crime (2 to 5) is prior to the first illegal solicitation on February 27, 2011, it cannot be deemed as the consideration for illegal solicitation.

C) Since the instant crime sight table (3) net 6 times and the instant crime sight table (4) net 2,5 meals are deemed to have been recognized in light of social norms, it cannot be deemed to have been the consideration for illegal solicitation.

D) The 4,6,7 sub-statements (4) netly paid to G in the face of the expense paid to G, and did not receive any different drinking value, and the said expenses are the same.