The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the charges of this case where the defendant offered that the defendant would have had the above suppliers engage in the sales business of human proted products, such as the principal of national and public school in Jeju-do, because he had had the above suppliers provide the above suppliers with human proted products, etc., in solicitation of the principal, and had the above suppliers receive money and other valuables in return for the above provision of the personal proted products to the above school, and received money and other valuables in relation to the intermediation of the public officials' duties such as the principal, etc.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) provides that a person who does not have a status as a public official may exercise influence over the duties of a public official by academic studies, delays, or personal influence. If such person commits an act, such as accepting money and valuables, etc. under the pretext of good offices as a broker or intermediary in connection with the duties of a public official, the fairness in performing the duties of a public official is doubtful. Thus, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Here, the term "mediation" means "convenition or convenience between a certain person and the other party with respect to a certain matter, regardless of its form," and therefore an act of transferring the intent of solicitation to the other party or making solicitation on behalf of the person constitutes "convenition or solicitation on behalf of the other party" constitutes "convenition or solicitation."