All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The lower court sentenced Defendant A’s dismissal of prosecution as to the charge of intimidation against Defendant A, among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal part as to the above dismissal part, and the above part is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is followed with respect to the dismissal of prosecution as to Defendant A’s intimidation, and the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the defendants and prosecutor’s appeal except the above dismissal of prosecution.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are public officials working in Gtax offices, and thus, the J working in the same tax office is in a position to request the Prosecutor to resolve the issue of Defendant A’s tax.

Therefore, even though Defendant B should be deemed to be “a public official in a relationship that may substantially affect the performance of the affairs handled by other public officials,” Defendant B did not recognize this, and the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged of offering or offering of bribe to Defendant B and the facts charged of offering or arranging bribery to Defendant B, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles,

B. The reasoning of the appeal by the Defendants (the defendant A: imprisonment of 8 months, additional collection of 3 million won, Defendant B: imprisonment of 4 months and 1 year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by prosecutors

A. The summary of the facts charged in the lower judgment is as follows: (a) Defendant A’s offering of a bribe at a large place where the name of the post office near H is unknown at the beginning of November 2014; and (b) Defendant B, while carrying out B and alcohol at a large place where the name of the post office near H was unknown on November 1, 2014; and (c) Defendant B stated the details of purchase in the report on modification of the value-added tax reported on November 1, 2014 in the G Tax Office, but the details of purchase without submitting any supporting document.