The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although it is reasonable to see that the defendant received a large amount of money of KRW 13 million from E and received an implied request from E, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is a person in charge of the work performed by the construction company from October 2001 to January 201, 201, after examining and calculating whether the cost of construction requested by the subcontractor company to D Co., Ltd. is appropriate.

From June 2008 to December 2008, the Defendant received 7 million won from the new bank account in the name of G on the same day, and received 6 million won from the national bank account in the name of H on April 27, 2009 to receive the pecuniary benefits in return for illegal solicitation in relation to its duties, and acquired the pecuniary benefits in return for an illegal solicitation. The Defendant received 7 million won from the national bank account in the name of H on the same day, and received 6 million won from the national bank account in the name of H on April 27, 2009.

3. The lower court, based on its evidence, acknowledged that the Defendant, as an employee of D Co., Ltd., around 2009 as indicated in the foregoing facts charged, was in the position of a person in charge of calculating construction cost of the subcontractor, and received a total of KRW 13 million from E’s business operator, and further, considered whether the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from E, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the witness E and I’s statement, of the lower court, alone, submitted by E does not actually perform the additional construction cost.