The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for a year, respectively.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that Defendant A received KRW 50 million from Defendant A (Defendant A) due to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is merely a fact that Defendant A provided labor or convenience to C in relation to permission for the new construction of money, and it is not merely a fact that he received labor or convenience from C in relation to permission for the new construction of money,

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years, additional collection of 28 million won, Defendant B: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, additional collection of 22 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. Defendant A also asserted the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that Defendant A received KRW 50 million as soon as possible on the ground that the Defendant had received money in the name of giving rise to the influence in D military and the relation with the head of the Gun, etc. in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

B. A mere provision of labor or convenience in connection with a case or business handled by a public official is not included in the "act of receiving money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement concerning a case or business handled by a public official" under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, but where money and valuables are received by a public official by combining the nature of the pretext of solicitation with respect to a case or business handled by a public official is indivisible, the whole amount of such money and valuables shall be made as solicitation concerning a case or business handled by a public official

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3044 Decided April 10, 2008 and Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9746 Decided November 9, 2017, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below's duly adopted and examined evidence, Defendant A is a solicitation for the public official's affairs.