On January 24, 2008 and March 27, 2008, the complainant's statement that delivered KRW 8,000,000 to the defendant on two occasions under the name of case solicitation was reliable, but the court below rejected this as the remainder of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

Around January 24, 2008, at the office of the defendant in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant was investigated by D as a crime of raising minors at the 5th military police unit of the 5th Army, and received D's request from D to make a solicitation through the head of FO who is a person in charge of the Gu affairs area of the 5th military police unit of the 5th Army, and received D's request from D to make a well resolution of the criminal case of the children's children's children's case, and around January 27, 2008, the defendant changed to 3,000,000 won at that expense, and around January 24, 2008, the defendant accepted money and valuables from D's office under the pretext of receiving 3,000,000 won from D's automobile and handling it to the Minister of National Defense's 00,000,000 won for the above defendant's money and valuables from D's office.

The lower court rendered a judgment on the facts charged of this case not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the following grounds.

1) Each statement of D (the chief of the appeal, the police and the prosecutor's office's statement, the prosecutor's statement, the court statement, etc.) and the investigation report (the attachment of the transaction statement and whether cash withdrawal) are admitted as evidence for submission of the prosecutor who corresponds to the above facts charged.