The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is without any fact that the Defendant received money and valuables from G, and there is no fact that G is in the parking lot or daily house as stated in the facts charged.

G, K,O, etc. may not be trusted for the following reasons. In so determining, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by taking their statements as the main evidence.

① As to the part that the Defendant received KRW 5 million from G on December 3, 2012, G showed that G had a talk that the Defendant was a personnel figure, and G had a talk that the Defendant was a personnel figureed at G Co., Ltd. (K).

On the other hand, K made a statement that such a talks were rather made from G.

each other's statements are in place.

In addition, since the G’s statement falls under the professional statement from K to the original statement, K makes a statement different from that of G’s professional statement, it cannot be found that G’s professional statement alone makes contact with K as the Defendant is personnel management and personnel management.

(2) The credibility of G's statements relating to five million won shall be doubtful for the following reasons:

In other words, G's motive to provide money and valuables to the Defendant for various convenience in the construction process is difficult to believe, there is also a conflict between the submission of a business plan and the delivery of KRW 5 million, and it is difficult to believe that G's statement about the attitude of the Defendant at the time of receiving KRW 5 million.

In addition, it cannot be readily concluded that the money is actually paid to the defendant only with the statement of the entry and withdrawal, and a part of the G's statement is inconsistent with the monetary content.

③ As to the Defendant’s delivery on January 4, 2013, KRW 300,000 to the Defendant, G had talked to the effect that the Defendant’s ad hoc error, but it was difficult to see the date, thereby demanding a revolving cost of KRW 3 million.

Although the defendant stated that the date of hearing does not take place, the defendant's meal expenses.