The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, KRW 50 million received by the Defendant on or around August 2006, KRW 300 million received on or around March 2008, and KRW 200 million received on or around October 2009, respectively, are different in terms of receipt, and it is difficult to view it as a single comprehensive crime committed under the single criminal intent due to lack of time intervals.

Therefore, the statute of limitations has already expired for KRW 50 million received in September 2006.

In addition, even though the Defendant received KRW 3 million each month from September 2006 to April 201 was not paid as a consideration for intermediary, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it was not paid as a consideration for intermediary.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 1168 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the establishment of a single comprehensive crime, it is reasonable to view that the money that the defendant received from D is the money received below the criminal intent of the single and continuous criminal intent, which provides the relevant public officials, in order to achieve the same purpose as securing sewage treatment capacity necessary for the implementation of the apartment construction project promoted by the defendant. Although the money that the defendant received from D was paid to the defendant, at the time of the receipt of the above, the method and the name of allocating the quantity of the Gwangju City's sewage was different, and there was a interval of one year and seven months between the above acceptance and the renewal of the criminal intent.

Since it is difficult to see that the criminal intent has been severed or that the criminal intent has been severed, the defendant's argument disputing this point is without merit.

Moreover, as seen below, the Defendant received money of KRW 3 million from September 2006 to April 201 each month, and the Defendant himself also presented “D first presented KRW 1 billion at the investigative agency and KRW 1 billion at the same time.”