A. Notwithstanding the following circumstances, Defendant 1’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s bribery charge and determined it as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery). Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. A) The KRW 500 million, which the Defendant received from AE (hereinafter “AE”), a stock company, etc. (hereinafter “AE”), was issued to the effect that “the AD market, who was newly elected, leads to many attempts to AE in the future.” It is a political fund not a bribe but a bribe

B) AC merely takes charge of the coordination of the design deliberation subcommittee for the local construction technology (hereinafter “AD City design deliberation subcommittee”) in the case of AD, because it is merely a practical task force, approval of the mayor, schedule, interview, etc.

(C) Even if a design deliberation subcommittee is an organization belonging to AD, the selection of the contractor of the construction work of the AH apartment (hereinafter “AG apartment construction work”) itself is merely entrusted to the design deliberation subcommittee at AD City, and the non-public official is included among the members of the design deliberation subcommittee at AD City. Thus, the duties of the public official commissioned as the member of the design deliberation subcommittee at AD are included in “matters belonging to the duties of other public officials” as stipulated in Article 132 of the Criminal Act.