The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below found that ① the defendant informed other bidders of the unit price of the company participating in the bidding to F, and even though the issue was whether the defendant supplied non-marine oil in G around July 2010, F continued to be selected as a marine oil supplier, and received an illegal solicitation despite being aware of the supply of non-marine oil in G, J, and L after September 2010; ② the defendant received 39 million won from F from January 201 to May 201 from May 17, 201; ③ the defendant knew of the fact that he received 130 million won from F, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or found the defendant not guilty of the facts of the judgment of this case, misunderstanding of the legal principles on July 17, 2010 or KRW 100 million from F, and 70 million from May 7, 2011 to 1, 20081.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the following grounds.

1 As to whether there was an illegal solicitation, whether the Defendant informed F of the unit price of another participant in the tender to F, the credibility of the F’s statement is inconsistent with the facts recognized by the tender document, such as where F’s statement was the only evidence before the prosecution and the original court, and where F’s statement was inconsistent.

In light of the fact that the Defendant supplied non-marine oil in G around July 2010, the Defendant had been involved in the supply of non-marine oil in F, I, and H’s statement that the Defendant had talked with the Defendant that F had been unaware of the supply of non-marine oil as a marine oil supplier.