The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in relation to “the instant primary project” ordered by the Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter “the instant primary project”), there was a call from Q immediately after the Defendant was notified by the person in charge of the instant primary project assessment committee from the person in charge of the Korea Rail Network Authority that he was selected as a member of the instant primary project, such as the statement in the facts charged. However, it was intended to inform Q of the fact that he was unable to go to the said evaluation committee on the same day, and there was no talk that he was selected as the said evaluation committee, and even if there was such speech, there was no fact that Q received illegal solicitation from Q.

B) I Co., Ltd. (former JJ Co., Ltd., hereinafter “I”).

2) The Plaintiff’s order is the Plaintiff’s order to purchase the train control system for private investment projects in the front line of status (hereinafter “instant secondary business”).

In relation to Q, the Defendant did not inform Q of the fact that he was selected as a member of the above evaluation committee as stated in the facts charged, and there was no fact that Q received documents related to Q from Q to the second business of this case. Even if Q received the above documents and made a statement from Q to the effect that “the request was made,” this cannot be deemed to be “illegal solicitation.” Furthermore, the time when the Defendant was appointed as a member of the evaluation committee, cannot be deemed to have been in the position of “a person who administers another’s business,” who is the principal agent of the crime of breach of trust taking place after receiving the above request. C) The Defendant received KRW 27 million from Q to purchase 10,000 from Q as stated in the facts charged, which was received based on an individual-friendly relationship with Q. However, it was received based on Q.