The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 10,000.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles with respect to Defendant B’s abuse of authority; and (b) the Defendant received a request from AL to the effect that the site for filling the LPG is colored; and (c) there was no order from Q, the head of the Green Planning and Green Permission Team, to find a site for filling

The lower court acknowledged this part of the facts charged against the Defendant on the basis of the statements of AL with high possibility of false statements in relation to the Defendant and the evidence without credibility, such as Qu and D’s respective statements, to impose liability on the Defendant in order to relieve their criminal responsibility.

Even if the Defendant directed Q Q Q to color the LPG charging site

Even if the site that meets the requirements for installing the LPG charging station is an act that is included in the Defendant’s duty and the Defendant’s order to find the site for the LPG charging station was merely an act that assists the Defendant in performing the above duties, and thus does not constitute an act that causes Q to perform an act that does not have any legal duty.

In the end, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prevention of corruption and violation of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Civil Rights Commission by the people, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, found QG charging site (hereinafter “U East site”) in QG et al., and did not know at all about the fact that QG charging site was found in QG et al., and therefore, there was no fact that QG charging project was found in U when providing U information on the same site to A.

In addition, the information on the U site is not information that is not known to the outside from an objective and general perspective, and it is not information that the defendant has become aware of in the course of performing his duties.