[Defendant A] All appeals filed by Defendant and Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant B] The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are erroneous in the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged in the crime of arranging bribery against Defendant A and the facts charged in the crime of offering of bribe against Defendant B and C, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though there is a relation where a widely known person as an expert in the field of investigation, who is engaged in the investigation of “the alteration of the front part” as well as a person who is in charge of the investigation of “the alteration of the front part”, can exercise de facto influence on the police officers after taking charge of the investigation of the alteration of the front part, but the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in the crime of arranging bribery against Defendant A and the facts charged in the crime of offering of bribe against Defendant B and C

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the penalty of one year of imprisonment, 72 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the facts by the prosecutor and the misapprehension of the legal principles on the assertion of facts. 1) The elements for establishing a bribe to accept, demand, or promise a bribe in relation to the referral of matters belonging to the duties of another public official by taking advantage of his/her position. Here, “public official’s use of his/her position” cannot be deemed as a case where he/she uses a private relationship, such as friendship, kinship, or simply uses a public official’s status. At least, a public official should use his/her status as a public official who has a legal or factual relation, which is likely to legally affect the performance of affairs handled by another public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do852, Oct. 21, 1994; 2010Do11460, Nov. 25, 2010). However, the interpretation of “a relationship that may legally or practically affect the public official’s duties” is an act of accepting a bribe in relation to his/her duties.