The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and additional collection for 10 million won) that the court below sentenced is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, who recognized all of the instant crimes, is against the Defendant.

The crime of this case is that the defendant provides the victim with consulting services on bidding for the selection of the entrusted operator of the child care center in Kimpo-si, and the victim requests for money in the course of paying the service expenses from the victim to "I wish to know about about the operation of the Gu child care center in Mancheon" (Evidence No. 57 of the evidence record), and it is reasonable to take into account the circumstances of the crime.

The amount received or obtained by the defendant is relatively little, and the whole amount received by the victim was returned before and after the commencement of the investigation.

The victim did not want to be punished against the defendant by mutual consent with the defendant, and submitted a written application for the appeal against the defendant in the original trial and the trial court.

There is no history of punishment of the defendant who has been sentenced to the same criminal records or fines.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant was well aware of the victim's access to local government, and the defendant knew that he would be able to be selected as an entrusted operator of national and public childcare centers by requesting the public officials or Gu council members through his access reporters so that he can be selected as an entrusted operator of national and public childcare centers, and he received money and valuables under the pretext of deceiving 10 million won and soliciting the affairs handled by the public officials at the same time, the defendant's act of committing the crime of this case was damaged the fairness and the purchase of unsound money, and the defendant used the status as an executive officer of G federation during the crime of this case.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

The first instance court is the same.