The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not make a solicitation or offer good offices with respect to the affairs handled by public officials, and the Defendant received KRW 400 million from B is merely a performance bonus, not a money received under the pretext of “to make good offices or good offices.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection KRW 400 million) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) The meaning of “taking money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging a case or affairs dealt with by a public official” under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to a case in which money and valuables are received under the pretext of mediating or promoting convenience between a public official and a client with respect to a case or affairs dealt with by a public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do21536, Mar. 22, 2017). As long as the relation or quid pro quo between accepting a request for solicitation or mediation and receiving or promising such benefit is acknowledged, the request for solicitation or mediation was made and the act of receiving or promising such benefit was made first and then receiving a benefit in connection therewith or in return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7050, Apr. 14, 2006).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3940, Jul. 12, 2013). Whether there exists a quid pro quo relationship between an intermediary and a beneficiary of a public official’s duties, is the content of the relevant arrangement, whether there is a friendly relationship between the intermediary and the beneficiary, and the amount of profit.