The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the "illegal solicitation" refers to the solicitation that goes against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith in relation to the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act. In determining this, the contents of the solicitation, the amount and form of the property received or provided in relation thereto, the integrity of the business administrator, which is the legal interest protected by the law, shall be comprehensively examined. The solicitation is not necessarily explicitly required, but it is not implicitly

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the head of the general department, which is a subordinate organization of the Council of the head of a factory in a D Complex, comprised of the factory heads, has divided media companies into two parts, and paid a certain amount of money to the relevant media companies as joint advertising expenses, taking into account the sales amount, etc. of occupant companies; (b) the advertising staff of each company in the D Complex have allocated the advertising expenses to each company; (c) The advertising staff of each company in the D Complex have no or weak advertising effect in the case of joint advertising; (d) there is no or weak relationship with reporters; and (e) there is a demand that the Defendant would not report any safety accident, etc.; and (e) the Defendant would have paid the remainder of the advertising expenses at the expense of the prosecutor’s office; and (e) the Defendant would have paid the remainder of the advertising expenses at the expense of 70% if he/she borrowed the money to the public prosecutor’s office.

In the case of low-class newspaper companies, the size of the common advertisement of the D Complex is more than five times.