The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected Defendant’s appeal as to mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine, on the ground that it is reasonable to view that, in collusion with M, the status of employees of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation may be deemed public officials in relation to the application of bribery, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received bribe in relation to “the duties of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s duties” by receiving money in return for assisting the Defendant to deliver feed additives in collusion with M, and that the Defendant is liable for the crime of receiving bribe in relation to “the duties of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s duties” from among the money deposited in the account under the name of the

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the determination of facts that are the basis of the judgment of the court of fact-finding is merely an error of the judgment of the court of fact-finding on the selection of evidence and probative value which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In addition, while examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant legal principles of the court of court below and the first instance as well as the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the subject of the crime of receiving and receiving a bribe, relation to duties and timing of taking over a bribe, calculation of the amount of a bribe, establishment and punishment of a public-private partnership joint principal offender, establishment and punishment of a crime against whom a crime was committed, and the burden

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.