The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The lower court determined that the Defendant received a request from Q, who received instructions from P on December 18, 2006 through December 19, 2006, by comprehensively taking account of the statements, etc. in the first instance court of Q, P, andY.

The argument in the grounds of appeal in relation to this part is that the court below made a false fact-finding based on the reliable statement of P and Q, although the defendant did not have received the above solicitation from Q.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence, which are the premise thereof, belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning of the record in light of the record, there is no reason that the judgment of the court below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Ultimately, the above argument in the grounds of appeal is merely to criticize the fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive right of the court of original judgment, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. If a person who administers another’s business falls under the scope of the business based on the trust relationship, and has acquired property or pecuniary benefits in return for an unlawful solicitation with respect to the business that can reasonably be expected to be in charge in the future, and subsequently has practically taken charge of the business affairs regarding the solicitation, the integrity of the person who administers the other’s business affairs, thereby being harmed, thereby constituting the crime

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4791, Apr. 15, 2010). The lower court, on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, based on adopted evidence, such as statements at the first instance court of the Z, in which an I Co., Ltd. that ordered the instant secondary project, was in charge of duties related to the commission of evaluators.