The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, through T, was found to have received KRW 20 million in early July 2008, and KRW 10 million in early September 2008, and KRW 30 million in total. However, there was no fact that the Defendant received KRW 60 million in remainder. Moreover, the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 30 million from B is not the name of delivering it to U who is a public official, as it was difficult for the Defendant to provide various advice to S operated by B during the period of six months, while it was difficult for S to re-contract with B, and it is not the Defendant to receive KRW 30 million in return for the Defendant to extend the contract term with 10% in interest rate for six months.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant received KRW 90 million under the pretext of delivering the bribe to the above U.S. is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The Defendant received money from B through T on July 2008 and on two occasions after September 2008. However, on July 2008, 2008, the Defendant asserted that the said money was received as consideration for the success of the re-contract after September 2008.

The defendant's assertion was changed several times as seen below, and the summary of the pleading was arranged as above in January 8, 2014.

On the other hand, the reason why T gives money to the defendant is that the defendant delivered to V secretary U as support money.

B) Ultimately, this part of the issue depends on the following circumstances, which may be recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, and the following circumstances, namely, (i) has been maintained for a long period of time; and (ii) before the investigation of the instant case begins.