A. Defendant 1) In relation to the receipt of bribe from H with a mistake of facts, even though there was no fact that the Defendant received KRW 3,00,000 from H around December 2012, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground of the statement of H without credibility, there is an error of misconception of facts. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of fine, five million won of penalty, and additional collection) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, prosecutor 1) in light of the fact that the defendant did not promise to the due date and interest at the time of receiving KRW 2 million from P when receiving KRW 2,00,000 from P, and that P returned KRW 2,00,000 to P after the investigation of the instant bribe, and that P was "the investigative agency provided assistance to select a subsidy business operator," it should be recognized as the crime of acceptance of bribe. However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Considering the difference between the spirit of the principle of substantial direct cross-examination and the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or there are exceptional circumstances where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court.