The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the public official shall receive money and valuables, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public official." Thus, it does not include simply providing labor or convenience in connection with a case or affairs handled by the public official and receiving money and valuables, etc. in consideration thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3145, Sept. 24, 2004). However, where money and valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting the case or affairs handled by the public official by the public official by providing labor or convenience in connection with the case or affairs handled by the public official, and the nature of consideration is indivisible and received by combining it with that of the case or affairs handled by the public official, the whole amount of money and valuables has the nature of soliciting the case or affairs handled by the public

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do514 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) 200 million won, which the Defendant received in advance from H as a down payment under the instant contract, is inseparably combined with the nature of the consideration for the approval of the instant construction project, as well as the consideration for other acts, is indivisible; (b) held that the Defendant has the nature of the Defendant’s 200 million won as the pretext of soliciting the case or affairs handled by public officials; and (c) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as ex post facto processing of KRW 200 million or whether the instant contract was