The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of thirty thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), direct evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged is the donor L and P's statements. However, each of L and P's statements is contrary to the formula of reasonableness and objective reasonableness, and is contrary to the common sense, ② it is not consistent with each of the above statements, ③ there are various circumstances to deem that L and P made a false statement by pressure or meeting at the prosecutor's office, ④ it has a good appraisal against the Defendant, ⑤ it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the above L and P's statements before the instant case, and ⑤ it is difficult to acknowledge the credibility of the statement, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.

In addition, in relation to the crime No. 2 of the holding, even if the defendant received money from P, at the time of the receipt of the money and valuables, the defendant was working as a manager of H roads Construction Works (hereinafter “Road Construction Works”) and a sewerage management manager who is not wholly related to the Mealbing Transport Work, and it cannot be recognized that the consideration is paid.

Therefore, any mother does not establish the crime of acceptance of bribe.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 30 million, an additional collection of KRW 35 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The issue of this part of the facts charged by the prosecutor (1) is whether there was an explicit or implied illegal solicitation against the defendant, i.e., whether there was a common perception or understanding between the defendant and AC on the fact that the duty subject to solicitation and the benefits provided to the Z are a quid pro quo for the execution of the defendant's duties.