The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Prosecutor’s Defendant B

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A received illegal solicitation or money (a total of KRW 10 million over twice) from G as stated in the instant facts charged, Defendant A found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the said Defendant solely based on G insufficient credibility, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The punishment of the lower court against Defendant A (limited to imprisonment for eight months, two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service activities, additional collection of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (defendant B) led to the confession of all the facts charged against the above defendant during the sixth trial of the court below, and there was sufficient reinforcement evidence of the above confession, such as the confirmation of the export performance and the application for issuance of the certificate, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant B led to the confession of the facts charged, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant B could be convicted of

There is an error of misunderstanding of facts (or misunderstanding of legal principles as to reinforcement evidence) in the court below's decision that it is not guilty on the ground that there is no supporting evidence.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor, among the facts charged against Defendant A, the public prosecutor applied for permission to change the part “G is on the following day” in Part 8 of Part 3 of the indictment of this case to “at 10:00 am on the following day.” The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant A among the facts charged against the Defendant A cannot be maintained any longer due to the change in the subject of the judgment.

On the other hand, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on Defendant A

A. The summary of the facts charged is in accordance with the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products from March 6, 2013 to September 20, 2016.