All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Although it is true that Defendant A1 received money from Defendant A, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, or Defendant A received money from Defendant B, it is merely a mere monetary loan relationship, the court below found this as a bribe and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The court below's determination on the assertion, such as the mistake of facts, etc. by Defendant A, after explaining the legal principles as stated in its reasoning, examined the adopted evidence and conducted the following circumstances, namely, ① appears to have been in the position of a person in charge of the processing and storage work of Defendant B, and Defendant A appears to have been in a position to provide sufficient convenience to Defendant B in connection with his work, ② appears to have been in close relationship with Defendant B from the time when Defendant A performed his work as a person in charge of the E management, ② was likely to have been in close relationship with Defendant B, or there was no money transaction between the Defendants. Defendant B lending money to Defendant A seems to have been in close relation with each other, rather than personal relationship among the Defendants. ③ Defendant B did not prepare a loan certificate, and it appears that specific maturity or interest was not specified, and Defendant A lent money to Defendant A without demanding any collateral related to the collection of claims, and Defendant A refused to receive money from the prosecutor's office in return for convenience at the time of investigation.