The prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the acquittal of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in light of the fact that: (a) Defendant A, who is deemed a public official by S, received a bribe as the deceased or representative of Defendant A; and (b) Defendant A received money from Defendant B and filed a claim for these expenses to the C Corporation by including the cost of cleaning goods in the supply of cleaning goods; and (c) Defendant A received a bribe continuously, etc. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on acceptance of bribe and the offering of bribe in this part, even though it can be assessed as being directly received a bribe by Defendant A, who is deemed a public official as having received money by social norms as stated in the "the relationship that Defendant A received a bribe and thereby would be exempted from expenditure."

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A: imprisonment of August 2 and fine of KRW 5 million, etc.; Defendant B: imprisonment of June 2) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged was received from the J bank account in the name of S, each R, and received a bribe in relation to his duties through S, and Defendant B provided money to Defendant B for a bribe in relation to duties of a public official by having 35 employees receive money through the said S through the said S, according to the consistent statement of S, according to the lower court’s judgment, the lower court directly accepted the money from Defendant B in the process of having received the said money from the Defendant on November 1, 2015, under the pretext of the visit expenses, the cost of replacing the U.S. TV, the cost of replacing the U.S. TV, and the cost of opening the year.