A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or acceptance of bribe against L does not first demand L to pay the money, and L included money in the Defendant’s external dumping without knowledge of the fact, and the Defendant knowingly returned the said money to L.

L The alcoholic beverage and food value are not a bribe because they constitute a private case.

B) The acceptance of a bribe against J was received from the J a childbirth congratulatory money and a flowers is merely a receipt of a childbirth congratulatory or a personal-friendly relationship under social norms, and is not a bribe.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts, etc. as to KRW 3 million based on the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the background leading up to the Defendant’s demand for money, the method of preparing money, and L appears to have prepared KRW 3 million with his own personal money. Although the Defendant did not demand, L appears to have no particular reason to reduce the amount of KRW 3 million with his own money; and (ii) L was included in the prosecutor’s investigation and the court of the lower court’s trial in the Defendant’s “pre-paid”.

The Defendant referred to as “Iskor,” and also the Defendant

“Resting that”

On the other hand, while consistently stating L at the time, the Defendant has changed to the effect that there was no such remarks from L at the time. In ordinary cases, it seems that L would have attempted to record the contents of conversation with the Defendant with his own cell phone at the time. If this situation is, L would have naturally put a plastic bag into the Defendant’s external slot machine.