The judgment below

The Act on the Prohibition of Acceptance of Money, Valuables, etc. on June 19, 2017 and the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Acceptance of Money, etc. was committed on December 1, 2017.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. According to all the evidence, including the statements of the victim G and K, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of extortion among the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant could have acknowledged the fact that the Defendant took money and valuables over six times in total from the victim G.

B. The Defendant’s receipt of money from the account in the name of the limited company C, which was actually owned by the Defendant, in response to a solicitation to prepare a public relations article or a favorable news article from the general N of the general secretary general of M Cooperatives and Q, the actual representative of the P, constitutes a crime of simple breach of trust where the Defendant’s receipt of money from the account in the name of the limited company C, which was actually owned, can be evaluated the same as the receipt of property directly by the illegal solicitation, and if not, the crime of violation of trust by a third party is established. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of trust among the facts charged in the instant case.

(c)

The court below found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Act on the Prohibition of Illegal Solicitation and Receipt of Money, Valuables, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, even though it was established that the Defendant violated the Act on the Prohibition of Illegal Solicitation and Receipt of Money, etc., on the grounds that the receipt of money, such as support money, to the account under the name of limited company C, which is the actual owner, can be evaluated as being received by the Defendant under the social common sense. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is the director general of the editing bureau of the limited company C (hereinafter “C”) located in the following city established around March 2009.

A. The Defendant’s attacked articles, such as F, etc. of Limited Company E (E) with the aim of waste treatment business, etc. from around the summer in 2009, the Defendant contaminated the surrounding environment.