All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles are as follows: (a) Defendant 1 received KRW 5 million from K as the amount of money without connection with G investigation; and (b) Defendant 1 received part of the amount of money requested to provide apartment rent deposit, which was issued around August 5, 2015, as part of the amount of money borrowed; and (c) Defendant 5 million won, which was issued around January 25, 2016, received as the advance payment at the time of the Defendant’s transfer and receipt of bribe; and (d) Defendant 1 received as the amount of money to be borrowed; and (e) Defendant 5 million won, which was paid around January 25, 2016, received as the advance payment at the time of the Defendant’s transfer and receipt of bribe; and thus, the said money is not recognized as

In addition, the Defendant did not receive from K KRW 5 million around March 28, 2016 and KRW 5 million around April 15, 2016.

The Defendant, through the summary of his oral argument on May 23, 2017, argued that: (a) the Defendant received KRW 2 million from K on December 31, 2015, and KRW 2 million on February 4, 2016, including the Defendant’s congratulatory money for college admission; and (b) the Defendant received KRW 5 million on April 15, 2016, not on the pretext of intermediary, but on the pretext of mere delivery to AC; (c) the Defendant merely received the said money with the intention to deliver it to AC; and (d) the Defendant argued that the delivery of the said money constitutes the crime of delivery of the premium, and that it does not constitute the crime of acceptance of good offices.

However, this cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument after the lapse of the time limit for appeal, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, it can be recognized that the defendant received each of the above money from K under the pretext of arranging various criminal cases. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility, probative value, and burden of proof, thereby convicting the facts charged.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty of 5 years of imprisonment, 100 million won of fine, 89 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Prosecution 1 on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and Prosecution 1 on K.