[Defendant E] The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed.

[Defendant F] The lower judgment.

A. Defendant F did not have an obligation to supply synthetic timber to Gangnam-si with regard to “Z Corporation - 2 synthetic timber” (hereinafter “instant construction”). Defendant F did not know that Y was the representative of the construction company of the instant construction and that Y was supplied with synthetic timber remaining after the instant construction site while performing primary construction; Defendant F did not have conspired with Y; Defendant F was found guilty of the charge that Y received 9,576,000 won from Gangnam-si in collusion with Y due to erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, as long as L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) (the supplier of synthetic timber) supplied Y to Gangnam-si in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge that Y conspireded with Y and acquired Y,576,00 won from Gangnam-si in collusion.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court found Defendant F not guilty of the fraud of the Victim Pyeong-gun among the facts charged against Defendant F, on the ground that the sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant F (fine 5,000,000) was too unfortunate, and thus, the lower court acquitted Defendant F of this part of the charges due to erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although according to each of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted Defendant D of this part of the charges, based on each of the following facts: (a) Defendant D delivered Defendant E a bribe of KRW 5 million to Defendant E on March 2009; (b) KRW 3 million to Defendant E on May 2009; and (c) Defendant E received and received a bribe of KRW 8 million from Defendant D as above, the lower court acquitted Defendant E of this part of the charges due to erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in the first criminal trial on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant F is the prosecutor, and the recognition of conviction is room for a judge to make a reasonable doubt.