The judgment below

Among the defendant A, the part of the acceptance of bribe and the defendant C due to the two multiple times each week.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Defendant A’s violation of the Political Funds Act and the violation of the Local Public Officials Act, Defendant C, B, and AJ’s statement, Defendant A and Defendant C’s text messages given and received, etc., Defendant A committed this part of the crime in order for Defendant A to make a solicitation for personnel solicitation by setting up a R’s Do governor’s election at the 6th simultaneous local elections, and Defendant C delivered the election funds through Defendant B at Defendant A’s request.

In relation to this, the recording file of a provisional general meeting of shareholders by U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) in which the conversation of Defendant A and C is recorded is admissible as evidence and credibility are recognized as being recorded during the ordinary meeting process.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is unreasonable.

B) According to Defendant A’s statement, etc. of Defendant A’s violation of the Public Official Election Act, Defendant C’s advertisement for election campaign is acknowledged upon Defendant A’s request to publicize employment of U employees.

There is no U.S. employee employed by the instant advertisement, and the instant advertisement differs from the employment advertisement published on January 12, 2015 for the purpose of actual job offering by U.S. in terms of the type, substance, expenses, etc.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is unreasonable.

C) The lower judgment that acquitted all Defendant A of the charge of acceptance of bribe and the charge of acceptance of bribe by Defendant C, even if all of the facts charged are recognized as follows, is unreasonable.

1. As to the two or more principal forms of punishment, it is evident that Defendant A actively responded to the process of foundation and sealing, and that Defendant A was aware that the two principal forms of punishment was received as a bribe because the price of the two principal was not stated, and that Defendant A received two million won after the two principal forms of punishment to Defendant C.