A. Defendant (i) the statement in J against the rules of evidence, L’s each statement in the original trial, and each of the statements in the investigative agencies are only hearsay evidence with the purport that “H has delivered a bribe to the Defendant,” and thus, inadmissible as evidence.

Nevertheless, the court below's adoption of the above statements as evidence and finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case has violated the rules of evidence and affected the judgment.

Dodre misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant did not receive money as a bribe from H, and only the money that H had in a pro-friendly relationship with H was stored as a gambling fund, and was returned later.

The sole direct evidence that the said money is a bribe is only H’s statement. H’s statement lacks rationality in its content itself, and is not consistent with H’s statement as to the amount of a bribe, time of delivery, method of delivery, etc., and is inconsistent with K and J’s respective statements, and thus, its credibility cannot be acknowledged.

In addition, in light of the fact that G is not the president of G, but the unemployment share is facing the repeated period at the time of J, the J examines and requests the J to investigate and change the case to be disadvantageous to the Defendant, so that H, who is the husband of the J, is disadvantageous to J.

In addition, it is not consistent with the apology that the defendant would be subject to a fine by J, and the defendant who is only a police officer in charge of investigation does not have a position to allow the J to be subject to a fine.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts that the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the H's statement was credibility.

Article 28 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 1500,000,000,000 won for one year of imprisonment and a fine of 15 million won) is too unreasonable.

(b).