A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and his defense counsel clearly stated that the Defendant was given an opportunity to grant a loan from H during the party hearing (Article 1 of the facts charged) and that only the grounds for appeal on this part should be determined with the exception of unfair sentencing. As to this part, it is not necessary to separately determine this part, except for the charges of unfair sentencing since the Defendant submitted a written statement including solicitation, business relationship, and relationship with H related to the above crime after the closing of argument, and the Defendant did not obtain economic benefits through the loan, and the Defendant did not have any relation to the above loan and the Defendant’s duties, which are the ASEAN market. However, as the lower court properly states, the Defendant did not separately determine that the Defendant received a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties by receiving an opportunity to grant a loan from H, and the Defendant did not receive specific solicitation in relation to the authorization and permission of the ASEAN LAW (hereinafter “instant golf course”), and the lower court merely found the Defendant guilty of the total amount equivalent to KRW 100 million as a loan and KRW 2000 million (hereinafter.

B) Even if the above KRW 120 million for domestic affairs is recognized, the fact that the defendant received an opportunity for a loan from H (this part is deemed to be in the relation of the charge of the acceptance of a bribe (this part is deemed to be in the relation of the charge under Paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and the lower court.