A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

217,423,987 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is a person who operates a huber company related to the supply of government-funded construction with the trade name of building B and C in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and D from the sixth floor from 2012.

Co., Ltd. is a company that engages in the manufacturing and selling of cement products, such as reticulate block, from F.

The Defendant received a proposal from the D office located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, 2012 to offer price equivalent to approximately 15-20% of the price of supply to the public officials of local governments, etc. who ordered government-funded construction work from the employees of G et al. who ordered government-funded construction work from the employees of the local governments, etc. who ordered government-funded construction work, and received such proposal. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant received a request from the E corporation to arrange the supply of E products equivalent to KRW 58,05,000 of the price of supply to the “I” construction (supply Demand J andK) ordered by H Si around September 20, 2012, for the purpose of soliciting the supply of products equivalent to KRW 15,708,249 of the price of supply to the Defendant’s account, and received KRW 8,708,249 of the price of supply from the E corporation to August 27, 2018.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables on the pretext of solicitation for cases or affairs handled by public officials.

2. As described in paragraph (1), the Defendant: (a) made a solicitation to arrange for the delivery of the products of the victim company to the construction work ordered by the government offices between the victim company E; and (b) agreed to receive approximately 15-20% payment under the pretext of the fee; and (c) the fact that the Defendant did not conduct business activities, such as solicitation, and the employees G of the victim company did not conduct business activities, and supplied the products of the victim company by performing business activities; and (d) the above G is the Defendant’