The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

The punishment against A shall be 8 months, and the punishment against Defendant B shall be 4 months, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime of offering of a bribe), Defendant A was guilty of 1.B.

Defendant B and P did not pay the drinking value after drinking three alcohol together with Defendant B and P, and there was only fact that Defendant B, R, U (B hearing officers of the Mine Police Station), and T (P police officers of the Song-gu Police Station) had a drinking beverage, upon Defendant B’s request to provide advice to L, who requested to give advice to L, and the drinking value was paid by R.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the facts erroneous and convicted Defendant A.

(2) In order for the crime of bribery to be established, there should be a quid pro quo relationship between the bribe and the job. Defendant B was an employee of the prosecution rather than a prosecutor with the authority to dispose of the case, and Defendant B paid the ex officio value of Defendant B.

There is no quid pro quo relationship that has granted benefits in return for any disposition in that part.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on this point, thereby pronounced Defendant A guilty.

(3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts as indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, Defendant B did not have paid the drinking value after drinking three together with Defendant A and P, and there was only a fact that Defendant B, upon Defendant B’s request, was in a drinking house where Defendant B, R, U (BS Hearing officer) and T (PP police officer) were in the drinking place, and the drinking value was paid by R.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the facts erroneous and convicted Defendant B.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (one year of suspended execution in four months of imprisonment) is too excessive.