The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not receive KRW 10 million under the pretext of soliciting the employment of the head of Do Gun from I. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant claiming unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment and ten million won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant against the prosecutor (an unjust assertion) is too unfeasible.

2. The Defendant in the instant facts charged is E’s position in the Republic of Korea since 2002, and exercises the personnel rights of the public officials of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea.

At around 11:00 on September 16, 2006, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would help the Defendant make a special employment by soliciting E, who is the husband of a drinking water box with cash KRW 10 million, in response to the request from G University Early Childhood Education and Hado Office in the Hado-gun Office in the Hado-gun Office in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, where the Defendant is a professor, along with the request from G University’s Early Childhood Education and Hado-gun Office in the latter half of the year that “I have a special employment in technical position in the latter half of the year, and I will help do so by soliciting E, who is the husband of the drinking water box containing KRW 10 million.”

Accordingly, the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the affairs handled by public officials.

3. The judgment of the court below

A. The defendant presented I only once through the introduction of MM professors, and argued that I did not meet I again or receive money from him. In the case of bribery, where the defendant, who was designated as the consignee, denies the fact of bribery and there is no physical evidence, such as objective data to support it, the statement made by the lender and the sender must be admissible as evidence, and it is reasonable to exclude the reasonable doubt. In determining whether the credibility exists, the statement itself is rational.