The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the records as to the part of the violation of Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and argued of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal and of unreasonable sentencing. On January 15, 2014, the first trial of the court below on January 15, 2014, it is obvious that only the allegation of unfair sentencing as to this part of the facts charged has been left and the remaining grounds for appeal have been withdrawn

In addition, as long as the defendant withdraws the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as above, it cannot be accepted that the judgment of the court below did not make a decision on the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. As to the part of violation of Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the gist of the grounds of appeal in this part is as follows: (a) according to the statement (Evidence A 1) submitted by H to the lower court, which is different from the statement made by investigation agencies or the first instance court; and (b) H delivers KRW 20 million to the Defendant with the election fund of Q around April 2012; and (c) it is not a delivery to the Defendant under the investigation team relation with the G Savings Bank.

However, the above argument in the grounds of appeal is erroneous as to the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Even if the reasoning of the court below and the court of first instance are examined in light of the evidence duly adopted by the court below, it is just to find the court below guilty of this part of the facts charged. There is a violation of the principles of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence, or a violation of Article 111 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.