The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) C’s statement, etc. to the investigation agency of the instant facts charged, C may be acknowledged as having made a solicitation to the Defendant as stated in the instant facts charged, and the above solicitation was intended for the provision of convenience in the implementation of the contractual terms. Therefore, it constitutes an illegal solicitation contrary to social norms

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding a not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while serving as the victim B’s general secretary from June 2015 to June 2018, was in charge of overall control and management of property, accounting, etc., and the Defendant, around May 2017, was willing to receive and use part of the construction cost of the Goyang-gu E-based Multi-Family Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) ordered by the victim C (mutual name: D).

On May 2017, the Defendant proposed that C, who entered into the instant construction contract, should return part of the construction cost received from the victim by stating that “a certain degree of personnel would have been well awarded the bid price,” and that C would be able to receive a monthly progress without delay due to a public performance of the parties concerned during the construction work process, and that C would be able to pay the amount of KRW 40 million out of the fixed construction cost.

As above, the Defendant received unlawful solicitation from C in relation to the handling of the affairs of the victim, and acquired 43.7 million won, including the sum of KRW 15 million on September 7, 2017, KRW 14 million on October 18, 2017, KRW 200 million on November 23, 2017, KRW 11 million on November 23, 2017, and KRW 3.7 million on February 7, 2018, as the Defendant’s spouse’s H account.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment is that the prosecutor conducts inspections.