The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal that the F’s statement that “the Defendant provided the Defendant with KRW 5 million under the pretext of male viewing construction and teaching expenses for public officials,” is consistent from the time when the written complaint is submitted to the court of original instance, to the time when the Defendant handled affairs in relation to the building permit, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 5 million under the pretext of teaching expenses for obtaining the building permit, which is handled by public officials, from F, can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was asked from F to F whether a housing construction permit can be granted on the land outside the G of the Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si, the Sungnam-si, which is operated by D in the Sungnam-si, the revision of the facts charged in this case on March 2012; (b) the Defendant: (c) the Defendant was able to ask from F whether the F would be able to grant a housing construction permit on the land outside the G of the Sungnam-si, the Sungnam-si, the Sungnam-si, and the head of the Si Council, the head of the Gu, the head of the division and the head of the Gu, and the post-management relationship; and (d) the members of the church to which the Defendant belongs are working for the main department of the Sungnam-si, the civil petition related to the building permit may

On May 10, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from F to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife H on the land owned by F.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the cases handled by public officials.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, the lower court’s determination is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as F’s statement, was received money as a solicitation for a case handled by a public official.