The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and a fine of sixty thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with respect to the overall credibility of the O’s statement is limited to the AB Act (hereinafter “Act”) by theO as seen below.

() There is no fact that there was a solicitation in relation to the amendment, and theO also did not have any special reason to make a solicitation to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant, although there was no fact that O received gift certificates worth KRW 40 million and KRW 4 million in cash over five times as stated in the judgment of the court below, on September 16, 2013, on the basis of the statement of an O without credibility, etc., the court below convicted the Defendant of all the remainder of the charges except for the acceptance of bribe on September 16, 2013. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. (A) The defendant and the O were first divided at the time of the arrival of the Y hotel at the S Assembly room, which was the chairman, the full-time secretary under the jurisdiction of the law, at the time of the expiration of the Y hotel hotel, there was no reason or need to make a solicitation to the defendant.

B) On September 9, 2013, 2013, the Z “A” group was organized by the Defendant at the request of all the National Assembly members, and the Defendant was not a group to arrange for the passage of S Assembly members andO upon the request of theO, and the Defendant had already secured ten Council members necessary for the joint initiative of the amendment of the law. C) On September 12, 2013, the Defendant participated in the draft of the amendment of the law, which was merely dealt with in accordance with ordinary procedures as well as with other Council members participating in the joint initiative, but the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he participated in the joint initiative. LO stated that the Defendant recommended the amendment of the law but did not clearly specify the date and time that the first cash was given after the solicitation by the Defendant, and did not reverse the statement on the date and time granted several times, and was finally presented by the Prosecutor based on the data presented by the monetary base state.