The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

From the defendant 2.134 million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the facts as to the violation of the law by L, misunderstanding 1) M’s prosecutor’s statement and the court of the court below’s judgment, M had experienced uneasiness along with a vague expectation as to his/her reappointment, and M used consecutively to repair through GH, while GH became a human being of own plants around January 26, 2009, he/she should be deemed to have raised anxiety about his/her reappointment and caused the Defendant to request for reappointment.

2) M explicitly stated in the court of the court below that “A defendant asked to stop protruding out of P”, and the prosecution also stated that “I asked the defendant to play a role because there was a situation in which it was impossible to obtain P’s support due to one’s own connection.”

R also explicitly stated in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below that the defendant asks P for the reappointment of M.

The proposal stated that the case was “..........”

In light of the above statements of M and R and the relationship between the defendant and P, the defendant was asked for reappointment or mediation against P by M.

may be appointed by a person.

3) Considering that, in return for simply finding out only the atmosphere of the O bank (hereinafter “O bank”), M promises the Defendant to “large amount” and actually paid the amount of money in KRW 2 billion is contrary to common sense, and that U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) provided services to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) are worth KRW 2 billion.

It is difficult to see.

Therefore, the defendant's KRW 2 billion received from M is not a justifiable consideration under the public relations consulting contract, but a consideration for solicitation for reappointment of M.

4) The Defendant’s disclosure of piracy information constitutes a personnel solicitation even if he/she did not specifically specify the other party to the mediation and mediation.