All appeals filed against Defendant A by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence and fines of 12 million won, additional collection of 5,269,125 won, Defendant B: 2 years of suspended sentence and fines of 12 million won in August, 200, additional collection of 5,261,920 won in addition to additional collection of 5,261,920 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (Defendant A) 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and there is a fact that the investigative agency and the court of the original instance have given cash to the Defendant.

The P's statements are very concrete, and credibility is consistent with the O's statements and other objective evidence of the lower court.

In addition, there is no reason to harm the defendant, and there is no possibility of false statement in light of the situation at the time of statement.

Although there is no consistency in the number of times of giving cash, it seems that it is intended to make a statement favorable to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below is not able to believe that P's statement was made or proved to have accepted bribery only by his or her statement

It is difficult to view this part of the facts charged as being acquitted, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) When considering the misunderstanding of the above facts in sentencing, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too uncomfortable.

2. The judgment of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of the facts (as to Defendant A), the court below only made the P's statement as evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged. The P's statement is inconsistent with the timing, amount, frequency, etc. of payment of cash for the reasons stated in its reasoning. P's motive to make a false statement as P is being investigated by embezzlement against the LA, and there are several cases where P has motive to make a false statement about the cash delivery to the Defendant, and P has actually received a settlement by claiming false expenses with respect to the LA, and the Defendant was not present at the workplace of Gyeyang-si from May to July 2015, and around June 2015.