The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment on September 25, 2008 for the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and on October 3, 2008, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 3, 2008, and the Defendant did not receive money or goods under the pretext of making a solicitation or arrangement with respect to the cases or affairs handled by the public officials. However, around February 2008, the Defendant was investigated by the head of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office in Seocho-dong, Seoul, and on suspicion of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., with respect to the handling of phiphonephones, etc., from the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office, to C who was under investigation by the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office on the ground of suspicion of Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and received money or goods from D on the grounds of public service, who was under investigation, to arrest the Defendant's account of E, the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant received a total of KRW 17 million under the pretext of solicitation for a case handled by a public official.

2. C’s statements and recording records are recorded as reliable evidence corresponding to the above facts charged.

Among them, the summary of C’s statement is that “The Defendant was aware of the fact that he had been in the process of being able to receive a sentence for one year if the Defendant talks with the NIS staff. In return, the Defendant asked for the money to reduce the sentence for a sentence for a public figure, and the Defendant did not believe in the first time, but the NIS staff was actually engaged in an investigative meeting, and that it was believed that the Defendant’s statement was in the prosecutor’s office that the employee reported to be in the prosecutor’s office.”

In other words, the objective cases that form the contents of the statement concerning credibility of the above statement, namely, whether the NIS staff had interview C, for any reason, whether or not the NIS staff had been in the prosecutor's office, and if so, whether or not the NIS staff had been in the prosecutor's office.