All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (a factual error and misunderstanding of legal principles) has only been aware of the explanation related to the deliberation by the landscape committee by the J that visited Defendant’s laboratory, and there was no fact that Defendant received gift certificates from J.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the lower court’s statement without credibility was found guilty.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence and fine of 4,00,000 won, etc. for four months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine in detail, on the ground that the Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part, and on the ground that the lower court stated in the judgment that “judgment on the Defendant C and the defense counsel’s assertion” in detail.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. In applying the public prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, there are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant, a member of the D Committee, who is deemed a public official, received a department store equivalent to KRW 1,00,000 in relation to his/her duties, thereby impairing the fairness and integrity of execution of duties, and the public trust in society as to the non-purchase of duties, and that it is not good to commit a crime, and that the Defendant’s denial of the crime until now, and thus, cannot be deemed to have divided his/her mistake.

However, it is relatively low that the defendant received benefits, and the defendant does not actively demand a bribe, but has performed his duties unfairly after receiving a bribe.