The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of H’s specific and reliable statement that the defendant offered a bribe to the defendant, the confession of part of the defendant, etc., the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, unlike this, has erred by mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case.

2. The summary of the facts charged is a public official who served as a person in charge of E affiliated with Kimcheon-si from January 24, 2009 to July 31, 2013 and was in charge of ordering and supervising “FGG projects” pumps installation works, and H is a representative director of the I and the J is a business.

The Defendant, at the Kimcheon-si office located at the end of the end of 2012 Kimcheon-si 1 (New-dong), ordered the above G PPP installation works by a private contract from J to the K, and prepared a written reason for requesting the LPP installation contract to purchase the pumps of the KMI on March 2013, and submitted it to the Daegu Regional Government Procurement Office through accounting. Accordingly, around April 26, 2013, Kimcheon-si ordered the said KP installation works to the KFI for a private contract of KRW 1.462 billion for the construction cost.

Above June 2013, the Defendant

7. During the Seocho-si period, H was awarded KRW 20 million in cash, which was offered from H to the road side near the Imyang Office in the Gu K Building B, to the meaning of giving rewards for ordering the construction project and convenience in the future in the process of inspection, delivery, and installation in the future.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

3. The judgment of the court below

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.