The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the statement of grounds of appeal dated July 4, 2014 and July 8, 2014, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued for mistake of facts as to the facts stated in paragraph (3) in the judgment of the court below. However, the aforementioned assertion of mistake was withdrawn at the first trial date ( September 24, 2014). The Defendant and the defense counsel made clear the position of withdrawal of mistake of facts through the statement at the third trial date ( October 22, 2014), which was made on October 22, 2014 and the statement at the third trial date ( October 22, 2014).

1) Violation of Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (hereinafter “D”).

In light of the circumstances where a monetary loan contract was made between the Defendant and E and the Defendant and the E, the chief of the accounting division, reversed several times of statements, and there is no credibility in the statement in the position where there is a conflict of civil interests between the Defendant and the public official in charge. Since E was able to make a solicitation through DNA, the Defendant and E did not have any reason to deliver money under the name of the Defendant. In light of the fact that the circumstance where the monetary loan contract was made between the Defendant and E and the Defendant was made and the fact that E was due to an individual, not an educational foundation establishment D, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the Defendant’s own personal funds, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received KRW 30 million under the pretext of obtaining the permission for establishment, etc. of school foundation upon the request of the public official in charge. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

And the defendant's delivery of 1.7 billion won to the defendant is merely a fact that the defendant has returned according to his own judgment after having entered the bar with the lawyer.