The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. On the grounds of appeal, the Defendant alleged that there was an error of mistake as to the whole of the facts constituting the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below (Article 1-A of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below) but later, the defense counsel explicitly stated in the court of the first instance that he claimed the above No. 1-A of the above facts.

The Defendant, upon receiving the direction of H, the representative director of the above company G (hereinafter referred to as “G”), conducted business activities so that public officials in charge may receive government-funded construction works by visiting government offices, such as local governments, etc., by introducing Dong newsletters, and as a result, received approximately 5% bonus in accordance with the monthly salary and the amount of received orders, and did not receive any compensation for mediating matters belonging to public officials’ duties, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 527,084,370) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to the argument of mistake of facts refers to the mediation of matters belonging to the duties of a public official, not himself/herself, for another person's business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do357, Jun. 11, 2002; 2010Do2554, Apr. 29, 2010; 2013Do4644, Aug. 23, 2013). Thus, if an employee requested by the representative director of a company to make a request, he/she is related to the company of which he/she works, and if such employee solicits as a representative of the company, he/she cannot be deemed as mediation for another person's business. However, after concluding an employment contract between the defendant and the company, the company may take the government-funded construction work while directly using the company's ordinary business without involvement in the company's ordinary business affairs.