The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the conviction in the original judgment), the Defendant had engaged in money transactions several times with K and the Defendant from around 2000, prior to the occurrence of the instant case. The five million won transferred from R on June 25, 2009, not from the money received as a solicitation, but from the borrowed money borrowed from R, on June 1, 201, the Defendant repaid the full amount by transferring the money to the account used by K on November 15, 201, to the account used by K, and the U-U-U-U-U-U-U-A car also identified as being substituted for the extra-high vehicle used by the Defendant at the Defendant’s request. The purchase price of the said vehicle is also paid by the Defendant to the public official, and it is not delivered the cash and cus in the instant facts charged by K under the name of the Defendant’s solicitation for the affairs handled by the public official.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine and additional collection 17.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. It is reasonable to view that the case of a solicitation related to the delivery of W W W W W W W Roman's car is on the part of the lower court guilty on October 2010 and on the extension line of the case related to the issuance of the Coos car at the lower court. On March 28, 2011, which was the time when K transferred the said Coos car to the Defendant by changing the said Coos car to the above Coos car to the above Coos car, around March 28, 2011, K was indicted for the violation of the Medical Service Act on February 28, 201, and before the first trial date was opened, K was indicted for the violation of the Medical Service Act on February 28, 201, and from the point of view of K, it was more flick at the end of the Defendant to request the case to a member of the National Assembly.