The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant did not make a solicitation concerning the case or affairs handled by a public official.

Even if the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or good offices for public officials

Even if the Defendant and the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) requested or accepted the request for solicitation or mediation in advance, they cannot be punished under Article 111(1) of the Defense Act.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, through the business of the public officials in charge of the Office of Education in the case of the Sejong Special Self-Governing Province (ju), provided that on December 24, 2014, a sum of KRW 94,545,90 in total at the above Office of Education “LED security lights and steel street lampposts” was supplied to the said Office of Education twice in total. From E, the Defendant was transferred KRW 3 million to the post office account in the name of the Defendant on February 24, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant received 300,000 won under the pretext of solicitation or good offices for the affairs handled by the public officials in charge of the Office of Education.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as stated in its reasoning.

(c)

1) The lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

2) In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010). Meanwhile, Article 111(1) of the Act provides money, valuables, entertainment, and other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public official.