The respective acceptance of bribe and offering of bribe around October 19, 2015 and around October 21, 2015 are consistently stated by the investigative agency from October 19, 2015 to the court of the original trial, which provided Defendant A with one kind of monthly report around October 21, 2015 and around October 21, 2015.

Defendant

According to the above statements in B, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants exchange 1 straws each at each of the above dates.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles that the court below judged that each of the facts charged against the Defendants was not guilty for each reason.

Defendant B consistently made statements from an investigative agency to the court below’s trial on October 23, 2015, with the purport that “Defendant A offered a request for a bribe of KRW 30 million and that he consented to the offer of a bribe of KRW 30 million.”

Around October 2015, the F head of the F headquarters stated to the effect that “Defendant A demanded KRW 30 million as a bribe” from Defendant B.

It is also confirmed that the Defendants sent text messages about duty-free shops around October 2015.

In full view of this, the fact that the Defendants promised to exchange KRW 30 million as a bribe around October 23, 2015 can be sufficiently recognized.

This part of the facts charged by the court below is also erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: Suspension of qualification suspension sentence, fine of 1.5 million won, fine of 1.5 million won: fine of 1 million won) is too uneasible and unfair.

On October 19, 2015 and October 21, 2015, the lower court determined that the grounds for appeal were erroneous and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the grounds for appeal, and the following circumstances, i.e., the time of delivery of the sulfur amount, recognized by the evidence of the judgment.