The judgment below

The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be sentenced to four months of imprisonment and a fine of four million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: (a) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles; (b) misunderstanding of facts; and (c) misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not receive from K KRW 1 million in cash from K on August 2010; and (d) KRW 1 million in cash from K on December 2010 and KRW 500,000 won in Korean bank’s flag cards.

In addition, the defendant received 1 million won in cash from K on July 2010 and 100,000 won in the Hanman on October 2010 and 100,000 won in the department store gift certificates, but this is merely received in a private sense, and there is no relation to the defendant's duties and there is no consideration.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged of acceptance of bribe, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the sentence of a suspended sentence of 2 years, a fine of 10 million won, and an additional collection) against an illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: Factual misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, and F’s statement that the Defendant provided money and valuables to the Defendant by means of advance payment of cash or restaurant use fee as stated in the facts charged in the instant case is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, and it is recognized as credibility by making a concrete statement to the extent that it is not known without direct experience, such as the name of the restaurant used by the Defendant around December 207 and the fact that the Defendant demanded money for dental treatment.

In addition, on May 201, 201, K’s statement that delivered KRW 1 million to the Defendant in cash is consistent and specific, and it is merely reasonable that K made a mistake as to whether it was a point of time. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment as not guilty (including not guilty of grounds) of this part of the facts charged of bribery. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unfilled.