The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as well as the money donor C before receiving the money and valuables; (b) recognized the fact that the parties to the internal investigation case, which is the subject of solicitation, and the introductions of the case, did not divide any particular stories; (c) it is unreasonable; (d) it is difficult to believe that the participants’ statements at the time of meeting are likely to cause possibility of re-investigation into the above internal investigation case; (e) it is recognized that C borrowed five million won from J to deliver to the Defendant around April 30, 2013; and (e) it can be reasonably explained in full view of the purport of C’s statement about the circumstance in which C purchased the handbook delivered by the Defendant on the same day, even though there is little consistency in the statement of the Defendant, and (e) the Defendant could return the money transferred from C in lieu of the money invested by C and recover it later, which is only a mere return of credibility to the Defendant’s account under the name of a woman not returned to the Defendant.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the credibility of C’s statement on solicitation and delivery of money, and the fact that the money received from C was likely to have been received for any reason other than the pretext of solicitation, the lower court believed C’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant provided money and valuables upon request as stated in the facts charged,” as it is, to the effect that the Defendant provided money and valuables to the Defendant.