A. Defendants 1) Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, additional collection of 25 million won) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles (the abuse of authority in relation to the distribution of dividends in the AJ case) (the abuse of authority in relation to the accusation case) Defendant contacted with C’s civil petition with the content that “in relation to the fraudulent accusation case in which the amount of damage exceeds one billion won, there is a suspicion of a flexible relationship between Defendant AJ and the police officer belonging to the S police station, who is an investigator, an investigator,” and provided the head of the W Regional Police Agency Investigation Division of the W Regional Police Agency “to ask the R about whether the above accusation case may be distributed to R” for a fair investigation, and there is no fact that the Defendant instructed that the said accusation case be distributed to R with the intent of abuse of authority.

AH distributed the above accusation case to R by the Director of the S Police Station contacted by AG for household affairs.

However, since AH was conducted through voluntary judgment and review, the defendant does not allow AG, AH, etc. to perform an act that does not have any legal obligation in relation to the dividend of a complaint case.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant C (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (an imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of 40 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts of Defendant A and C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) and misunderstanding of the direct evidence of this part of the facts charged (the fact of offering a bribe) (the fact of offering a bribe) are consistent, and the statements made by the Defendants of the bribe, which are the direct evidence of this part of the facts charged, are consistent with the main parts of mutual statements, and the credibility of the statements in light

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the defendants' statements without reasonable grounds.