The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The “the police statement protocol against F”, which the court below found as guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, as a major evidence, was inadmissible since its authenticity was not recognized.

2) The Defendant’s punishment M on February 2, 2014 provided F with KRW 200,000 at the community hall located in E on February 2, 2014, and the Defendant did not directly provide F with money and valuables.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The main text of Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding whether the protocol of the police statement made by the police against F is admissible as evidence is “a protocol in which a prosecutor or judicial police officer made a statement by a person other than the defendant, and the protocol was prepared in compliance with legitimate procedures and methods, and it is proved by a prosecutor or judicial police officer that the protocol was the same as the statement made before the prosecutor or judicial police officer, or by any other objective method, such protocol is proved at the preparatory hearing of the original statement or at the trial date, video recording, or any other objective method; and the defendant or defense counsel could have examined the original person about the contents thereof at the preparatory hearing or trial date.

“A protocol in which a public prosecutor made a statement of a suspect or a person other than a suspect may be used as evidence only when not only the formation of a formal petition but also the establishment of a substantive petition is recognized by the statement of the person who made the original statement at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial date (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do537, Dec. 16, 2004). In such a case, the FF appeared in the court of the original instance three times and made a statement on February 11, 2014 (hereinafter “the statement of this case”). The second public trial date of the original public trial does not have any history that the statement of this case was attached to the statement of this case.