A. The main point of the argument is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unhutiled and unfair.

B. When the Defendant became aware of the fact of acceptance of a bribe by the victim, the crime of this case was committed by the victim directly with the office of the victim, and thereby obtaining money from the victim by threatening the press organization or his family members to know the fact of acceptance of a bribe by the victim, and the method and nature of the crime is not very good.

In addition, the amount of the money that the defendant got from the victim was not only KRW 50 million but also the damage was not recovered.

Therefore, the criminal liability of the defendant is not against the law.

However, the crime of this case seems to have committed the crime of this case by D, a partner of C who offered a bribe to the victim, for the purpose of collecting his investment funds.

In addition, the defendant alleged that the total amount of KRW 50 million was reverted to D, and he did not gain any economic benefits. Unlike the defendant's assertion, there is no objective evidence to prove that even some of the above KRW 50 million was reverted to the defendant.

On the other hand, although the damage is not recovered, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.

Furthermore, the defendant shows his attitude of reflecting his wrongness from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance, and there is no same criminal power.

In addition, when comprehensively considering all elements of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, and family relations of the defendant, the sentence of the court below is not considered to be unfair because it is too unreasonable compared to the degree of the defendant's liability.

2. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is dismissed on the ground of appeal.