A. The punishment of Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment and additional collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 5 million won in cash is the only evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged. A’s statement lacks consistency and objective rationality as to the timing of delivery of money, the place of delivery of money and valuables, the place of delivery of money and valuables, the clothes of the Defendant at the time of delivery of money and valuables, the day of delivery of money and valuables, the reasons for provision of money and valuables, etc. Rather, A stated that he provided money to the Defendant in order to conceal one’s female crime even though he provided KRW 5 million to a third party, such as AM, or that he made a false statement based on the Defendant’s malicious testimony. Thus, there is no credibility.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that it found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) The fact that the Defendant received 1 point in Korea from A is not on February 1, 2013, but on March 2013, the fact that the Defendant received 1 point in Korea from A, and the fact that the Defendant received 1 point in Korea is merely a receipt of a formal gift or a demand for social norms, and is not related to the Defendant’s duties, and even if the duty relationship is recognized, the Defendant did not recognize it. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and suspension of execution, one million won of fine, one million won of fine, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of obstructing Defendant D’s business operation (the part of not guilty in the original trial)) is that the Defendant is a P High School in 2013 (hereinafter “P High School”) with AF.

After compiling points of the essay test in the employment examination for middle school teachers, "the final comprehensive collection sheet for the first and second test" files shall be included.