The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant misunderstanding that he received KRW 80,00,00 as stated in Section 12 of the List of Crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below from B, and that he received KRW 20,300,000 from B around each time specified in Articles 8 through 11 of the List of Crimes. However, although the remaining money, such as the list of crimes, was not received, the court below concluded that he was guilty of all the charges of this case by taking each of the confessions, consistency, and credibility in the prosecutor's office and each of the statements in the investigation agencies of B and the court of the court of the court below without voluntariness. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the punishment of 2 years of the suspended sentence of 1 year and the fine of 14,600,000 won, additional collection of 7,300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the basis of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant received a bribe from B as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

On the grounds of the judgment of the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the court below which the court below found guilty: (i) The defendant committed the crime of bribery to the court below's decision in accordance with the counsel's advice, in the course of questioning the suspect before detention due to the crime of bribery to the court below's judgment and occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust; and (ii) the defendant

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant was denied the charge of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust while the defendant received legal assistance from the counsel at the time of interrogation of suspect, and then embezzlement and occupational embezzlement in the judgment of the court below.