The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the above judgment shall be publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although there was a fact that the accused of mistake of facts had met theJ at the time and place stated in the facts charged, there was no fact that theJ refused to give or receive a bribe only to the accused a shopping bag containing cash. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from July 23, 2008 to April 30, 2009, worked as the head office of the Korea Petroleum & Distribution Authority (hereinafter “Korea Petroleum & Distribution Authority”) and, via E branch president, etc., worked as F from May 21, 2012 to the head office of the Korea Petroleum Management Authority, and took charge of controlling and controlling pseudo petroleum distribution.

The Defendant, at “G” located in Songpa-gu Seoul around August 2008, received alcohol and entertainment equivalent to KRW 20 million from the J that operates the I gas station located in Seongdong-gu Seoul in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and solicited the J to “J President Park Jae-do” to read “J President Park Jong-si (Defendant) as a grat, so that he may assist him.” On August 14, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 20 million in cash under the pretext of providing enforcement information, etc., along with a request from the above J to the effect that “the convenience, such as prior notification of enforcement information on gas stations, is changed” from the above JK restaurant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, to the effect that “the convenience, such as providing enforcement information on gas stations, is changed.”

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

B. In full view of the following circumstances in the lower court’s judgment, the testimony by the J that the Defendant gave a bribe to the Defendant is reliable, while the Defendant’s statement denying this is difficult to believe, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

1. The Defendant, in the initial prosecutor’s statement, denies to the J only one of those who do not know about his name but do not have a permanent domicile.