The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1,128,90,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant F (hereinafter “F”).

Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) that is not an individual

(2) Since the Defendant received gift certificates by deceiving F that he/she would deliver gift certificates in spite of his/her intention to receive gift certificates, there is no quid pro quo between the Defendant’s acquisition of gift certificates and illegal solicitation. Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. (2) The punishment of the Defendant (a punishment of imprisonment, 3 years, 128, 900, 900, 190,000) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to whether an individual received money or goods or not, and the Defendant also argued the same purport as the reasons for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail in the judgment. The following circumstances cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the Defendant was the intention of acquiring money or goods offered by F from the beginning to the Defendant by an individual other than B (Article 773 of Investigation Record No. 2); (ii) the Defendant was the direct receipt of F Company G G or gift certificates after meal; and (iii) the Defendant refused to receive gift certificates in the name of F at the time of first delivery of gift certificates (the date of trial record No. 208 of the trial record; and (iv) the Defendant was the sole employee of the advertising contract in charge of the advertisement business as an employee of the Defendant.