The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the statement of H, which is the summary of the grounds for appeal, was reliable, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that the above statement was not reliable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or the principle of free evaluation of evidence, etc.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a person who served as Korea Electric Power Corporation E from January 24, 201 to January 31, 2013, and is deemed as a public official.

1) On October 201, the Defendant received cash of KRW 10 million from the office of the Korea Electric Power Corporation located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation GH received cash of KRW 10,000,000,000 from the Korea Electric Power Corporation to the effect that “a request for business evaluation and personnel management-related convenience” was made. Accordingly, the Defendant received a bribe in connection with the official duties of public officials. (ii) The Defendant received a bribe in relation to the official duties of Korea Electric Power Corporation. (iii) The Defendant received a bribe in the name of a request for promotion of the Korea Electric Power Company employees at the beginning and at the same place as the former and the former place, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation GH received cash of KRW 20,000,000 from the Korea Electric Power Corporation

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

B. The lower court determined that H’s statement was the most direct evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, and is the only evidence, and that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court were comprehensively taken into account: (a) the method and name of monetary delivery in itself are not reasonable in itself; (b) in light of H’s human being; or (c) at the time of the prosecutor’s statement that H had given money to the Defendant, it was under investigation into several different charges; (d) the part of H’s statement was not prosecuted after the prosecutor’s statement was made; and even the Defendant was the same.