The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As a matter of course, the complaint submitted by the Defendant is merely stating C the purport of abuse of authority and acceptance of money and valuables, and does not state the content of requesting punishment for the crime of bribery, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant filed a complaint against C with respect to the crime of bribery, such as the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Since misunderstanding of facts C did not make a proper instruction against members of G organization, the above G organization received 500,000 won for the purpose of medical care unfairly from the above G organization, this cannot be deemed to have reported false facts by the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of a false accusation must be made voluntarily, and the filing of a false statement with the investigation agency, etc. does not constitute an accusation. However, if the investigation agency voluntarily made a statement that was not entered in the original accusation report at the time of receiving a supplementary protocol of accusation, it shall be deemed that the statement was made to the part of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2652, Feb. 9, 196). 2) Even though the Defendant did not explicitly state the intent of the accusation as “the abuse of authority and the receipt of money and valuables” in the instant accusation, even if the Defendant did not explicitly state the intent of the accusation as the crime of bribery, it shall be deemed that the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against C at the time of the police’s statement by the complainant on May 25, 2018, as long as the Defendant responded the police officer’s question as “other”, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant combined the above supplementary statement to the prosecution

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act adopts a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.