The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the first crime as to the judgment of the court below, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of 10,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the F’s statement is insufficient to have probative value as criminal evidence, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the instant facts charged by using it as evidence, and even based on the remaining evidence of the submission by the Prosecutor, it is insufficient to acknowledge the guilty of the instant facts charged.

B) The Defendant received money from G in return for the application for permission to divide land, which is one’s own business, and thus, constitutes a case where the Defendant received money or goods for one’s own case or business, and was not for the purpose of good offices, and there is no relation between the good offices and the money received. Therefore, the Defendant’s act does not constitute the elements of the crime of good offices and acceptance. (C) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the first offense: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, the suspension of the execution of two years and the second offense: 10 months, the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for two years, the probation period of one year, community service, 240 hours, additional collection of 154 million won, and the second offense of unfair sentencing is unfair.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as follows, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, the Defendant received the amount indicated in the facts charged from G via F in return for mediating the matters pertaining to the duties of the public official.

A) The F’s statement at the F’s investigative agency and the court of the original instance, as direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, are admissible, taking into account the following circumstances, the F’s credibility is recognized.

(1) In each of the instant cases, F on behalf of the Defendant, and each service contract (hereinafter referred to as “the instant service contract”).