A. Defendant 1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles alone is insufficient to recognize the duty relationship and quid pro quo relation with the Defendant’s receipt of entertainment or ombudsman’s bridge, etc. written in the facts charged from E and G. Nevertheless, the lower judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of each of the bribery charges from E and G among the facts charged in the instant case, is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and suspension of execution, two years of suspension of execution,

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1 of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant received a bribe related to B’s duties, and the Defendant prepared and executed a public document as if he worked for 20,000 days and worked for 3 days on January 2015, and may be recognized as having taken the relevant construction cost. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles by acquitted the Defendant on or around February 5, 2015 of the facts charged in the instant case on or around the point of acceptance of bribe from B, and around February 5, 2015, on or around February 4, 2015, on the point of occupational breach of trust, and on the point of uttering of a false public document and the exercise of a false public document. 2) The

2. On February 5, 2015, the Prosecutor’s additional charge of occupational breach of trust, which was judged not guilty at the lower court among the charges of this case, for the first time in the trial, is maintained as follows.

As stated in the subsection, a motion to amend the bill of amendment to the facts charged in the preliminary case was filed, and this court permitted this and added the subject of the trial.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and the prosecutor's primary facts charged, and the other facts charged by the court below not guilty, and the argument of unreasonable sentencing as to the guilty part still exists.