The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant's grounds of appeal and Nos. 3 and 4 of the grounds of appeal by private defense counsel, even if the defendant appealeds as to the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing along with the sentencing, in the event that the defendant withdraws the grounds of appeal other than unfair sentencing before the judgment of the court of second instance is rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1274, Jun. 11, 2009, etc.). According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of first instance and appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and argued that there was misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the guilty portion (hereinafter "crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter "the second offense of violation of good Faith"), and the sentencing as to the entire guilty portion as well as the entire guilty portion (hereinafter referred to as "the second instance court's allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding

In such a case, the court below cannot serve as the ground for appeal on the violation of the procedure for collecting evidence under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, misunderstanding the legal principles on determining admissibility of evidence, or failing to render ex officio judgment on the assertion withdrawn by the defendant and his defense counsel.

2. On the third ground of appeal by the defendant, this part of the grounds of appeal are that the confession made by the defendant at the prosecutor's office about the third part of the grounds of appeal are the part concerning the acceptance of bribe from E-Ro, the part concerning the acceptance of bribe from F-ro, the confession made by the defendant at the prosecutor's office as to the second part of the acceptance of bribe from F-ro, the amount of KRW 500,000,000,000 in early March 2012, the amount of KRW 3 million in policeman and KRW 2 million in policeman, around June 2012, and around July 2012, the confession made by the defendant at the prosecutor's office is a return to the investigative agency or by intimidation, and it is not admissible as it is not admissible, and the confession at the trial date of the defendant, the second part of evidence based on the above confession, is also inadmissible.

However, this does not mean that the court below did not consider the defendant as the ground for appeal or as the object of judgment ex officio.