The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquittal.

A. Each of the statements made by I,O, and L, which correspond to the facts of the defendant's acceptance of bribe against the defendant, are not consistent or reasonable, and therefore, it is not reliable. The recording of the recording is not supported by the defendant's acceptance of bribe in itself, even though only these evidence are presented, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the acceptance of bribe among the facts of this case.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant (the sentence of imprisonment for four months, the suspended sentence of one year, the additional collection of two million won, and the suspended sentence of fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) clearly stated that, at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency, there is no consent to the Defendant to prepare the withdrawal statement under his/her name, and the P’s legal statement to the effect that it goes against this is difficult to believe in light of other evidence.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the charge of forging private documents and exercising the falsified investigation documents among the facts charged of this case, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. From July 26, 2010 to March 28, 2011, the Defendant is a public official in charge of the duties such as the Labor Standards Act and other labor-related Acts of the workplace under his/her jurisdiction, and the Labor Standards Act and the other labor-related Acts of the workplace under his/her jurisdiction from March 28, 201. From September 12, 2013 to September 30, 201, the Defendant is a public official in charge of the duties such as regulating or taking administrative dispositions on the violation of the Labor Standards Act and other labor-related Acts of the workplace under his/her jurisdiction.

(1) On January 4, 2013, the Defendant of acceptance of bribe from I, from the Ministry of Labor, is a public official at the F branch office of the Ministry of Labor of the Ministry of Labor of the Ministry of Labor. < Amended by Act No. 11183, Dec. 7, 2012>