The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by misunderstanding the fact that there was no fact that the Defendant received money from C, and even if there was no fact that he received a solicitation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment for not less than 8 months, fine not exceeding 24,00,000 won, additional collection) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The summary of the facts charged is a person who served as the director in charge of B City Construction from May 2012 to December 2014, and served as the director in charge of B City Housing Bureau from December 2014 to November 2015. From January 2017 to March 2017, the Defendant is a person who served as the director in charge of B City Urban Development Project Authority and has been in charge of the duties of granting building permission, etc. under the jurisdiction of B, and C is a person who has been in charge of design services in the D Office Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “D”) between December 2012 and March 2017.

On July 14, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 10 million in cash from C as consideration for providing various convenience, including prompt handling of authorization and permission-related affairs, and prompt handling of authorization and permission-related affairs, which were delegated by F, a corporate owner, in the course of performing design services. On December 14, 2016, at the office of the Director-General of the Urban and Viewing City Housing Bureau, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash from C as consideration for providing various convenience, including prompt handling of authorization and permission-related affairs, and prompt handling of affairs related to authorization and permission-related affairs, which were delegated by F, a corporate owner, while performing design services. On December 14, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 2 million in cash from C as consideration for providing various convenience, including prompt handling of affairs related to authorization and permission-related affairs, which were requested by D while performing design services as proxy by H, a corporate owner.

Accordingly, the defendant gives a bribe to public officials in relation to their duties.