The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the offering of a bribe to the Defendant by mistake of facts, the above appellate court’s judgment of conviction by the prosecutor of the appellate court became final and conclusive after the prosecutor’s submission of the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, on January 29, 2015, on the grounds of “non-submission of the grounds of appeal” in the Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12692 Decided January 29,

Since G’s statements, such as this, are subject to punishment due to them, it cannot be said that the credibility is high, and even if the circumstances and contents of the statements are reasonable and consistent, the judgment of the court below in other facts is erroneous.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence, which adopted a statement made by M on the seventh trial of the lower court, as evidence, and again denied the admissibility of evidence, by misapprehending the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged that “the defendant, the chief of the Housing Redevelopment Association’s office, received the shopping bags containing cash of KRW 350 million from M on December 2, 2012 upon the request of G, the president of the construction company, and received a bribe,” the lower court proceeded with the trial following the denial by the defendant that he did not receive M at the time and place, and that he did not receive the said money.”

For the same reason, there was a lack of proof of the above facts charged.

B. As evidence consistent with the above facts charged, there are ① the statements in G’s investigative agency and court of original instance; ② the statements in M’s investigative agency; ③ the statements in the N andO’s investigative agency and court of original instance; and each investigation report (the attachment of documents stored in the O’s USB, G, and M call analysis report).

① First, while G’s statement is relatively consistent and concrete, it is somewhat rare to provide the Defendant, who is merely the position of the chief executive officer to assist the president of the association, with cashing KRW 350 million.