All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the poor nature of the offense committed by the prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the court below (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for two years, the suspension of the execution of a fine of ten million won, the additional collection of 34 million won) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We also examine the judgment and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who had served as the president of the agricultural cooperative for about 20 years as the president of the agricultural cooperative, received several amounts from the head of the branch office under the pretext of life-saving, etc. in light of his status, influence, etc., and the nature of the crime is bad, and the amount of the bribe that has been given and received as long as the period of the crime

On the other hand, there is no criminal history against the defendant, and the defendant seems to have been performing the duties of the president of the agricultural cooperative for a long period of time, and the defendant is an old age.

In full view of the above circumstances, such as the character, conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, since the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant cannot be deemed to be too weak or unreasonable, the prosecutor and the defendant's respective arguments are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For reference, the amount of acceptance of bribe, which is the basis for the calculation of fines, is limited to the amount that the defendant receives after December 26, 2008, respectively, at one time a week of the judgment below. Therefore, the amount of a fine imposed on the defendant concurrently exceeds five times the amount of acceptance of bribe received from each bribe payer after December 26, 2008.