A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1, misunderstanding of fact, and misunderstanding of legal principles, ① not only worked in a department irrelevant to the N business between March 2013 and May 2015 when the Defendant received advance payment, but also is uncertain whether the Defendant will be in charge of the N business again in the future. As such, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to the duties to be in charge of the present and future.

In light of the work performed by the Defendant in relation to N business, the Defendant did not have any preferential position in each test researcher.

② The receipt by the Defendant of a prior settlement is private acceptance according to the friendly relationship with K,O, and R.

Therefore, there is no occupational relationship and consideration between the defendant's income and the defendant's duty.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted a bribe equivalent to KRW 6,754,00 in total from K,O, or R.

There is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the determination.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (2 years of suspended sentence in August, 200, fine of KRW 15 million, additional collection of KRW 6,754,000) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the public prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal principles and the illegal sentencing) legal principles (1) the number of times the Defendant and female meals were provided by the Defendant and the public female, duration, calculation method, etc., in full view of the fact that meal jobs cannot be seen as purely promoting friendship, the crime of bribery is established even without a solicitation, and the meal costs are not the amount less than the amount indicated in this part of the facts charged, it constitutes entertainment equivalent to the sum of 769,600 won provided by the Defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.