All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part of the charge), the Defendant informed the police of the information on the control of the game room by the police or received money or goods from the J in relation to the provision of the game room control information, as stated in this part of the charge, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the charges. The lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and ten million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In contrast to this part of the facts charged, although the testimony of Party B, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, was partially changed from the investigative agency to the court below's court, it maintained consistency with the fact that the defendant offered a bribe to Party B, and even in light of the game room business owner Q I, I's statement that the defendant gave money to Party B, and the details of the defendant's property increase on or around 2015, the court below did not believe B's statement and found the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged, and thus, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts, and thus, the judgment of the court below is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, on the grounds that the Defendant, as described in this part of the facts charged, was informed in advance to the police officers of the information on the control of the game site and disclosed official secrets, and received a bribe under the pretext of providing information on the game site control, based on the following circumstances described in the detailed statement: (a) the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that

The court below duly adopted and investigated the above judgment of the court below.