All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake of facts, and ① The statement made by J at the prosecution was made by the prosecutor’s pressure and interview with the prosecutor, and thus, the admissibility of evidence should be denied as it is not voluntary.

② The Defendant either received KRW 3 million under the pretext of arranging the instant water tank supply from J, or did not receive KRW 8 million under the pretext of arranging the instant water tank supply.

(3) The time, place, and method that the J’s statement at the investigative agency and the court of original instance delivered to the defendant eight million won or more, and there is no credibility as to the reversal of the statement, and there is no credibility as to the reversal of the statement.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (a 10 months of imprisonment, an additional collection of 11 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principles of the defendant and the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the sole basis of the evidence in the lower court’s holding, on the premise that the J has credibility of a statement that is consistent with each of the facts set forth in the lower court’s holding in the lower court’s judgment, although the J, in an investigative agency and the court of the lower court, has some inconsistent parts of the statements made in the lower court.

(1) Although the J has partially changed in the place where money was given from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, it provided a consistent amount of money to the defendant as to whether he provided money.

statement is made.

The J stated in the court below that it is not because the court below's decision that the defendant was not open to the defendant but the reason was false. In light of the attitude of the Justice recognized by the above evidence against the defendant and the difference of social status in the region of the defendant and the J, the J makes a false statement in order to harm the defendant.