All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 had a friendly relationship with J for a long time, and the Defendant has engaged in money transaction. The Defendant merely borrowed 12 million won from J and does not accept it as a bribe, and in relation to the facts constituting the crime Paragraph 2, the Defendant was forced to sit in the NY on the job where L is in contact with J, and there is no relation or quid pro quo with the Defendant’s duties. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even if it is not an unfair sentencing case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to acceptance of bribe. 2) Even if it is not an unfair sentencing case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one year and six years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of suspended execution, and a fine of KRW 2,5340,00 and KRW 12670,000).

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (Violation of the Political Funds Act). The judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendant as to the violation of each Political Funds Act on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above amounts constitutes election expenses, on the grounds that the election expenses is obvious and that the remainder of 49 million won paid as election consulting costs or successful election expenses has the nature of comprehensive consideration for election campaign, and in light of the legislative intent of the Political Funds Act that provides the combined election expenses, it is reasonable to see that the above KRW 71 million is election expenses. Meanwhile, even though the amount of KRW 16 million paid through a non-reported account on February 19, 2010 should also be considered as election expenses on the same ground, it is reasonable to see that there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above amounts constitutes election expenses. (2) The judgment of the court below is unjust.

2.