The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal accepted a bribe from H as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from August 27, 2010 to August 16, 2013, worked as F (Grade IV) in order to take overall charge of G, etc. while working as F (Grade IV) in the Si of Jung-Eup. The Defendant is a person who was in charge of G, etc., and H is a “Broer” who was engaged in the activities of ordering construction for the purpose of the Bank of Korea, which

Around the end of 2012, the Defendant received a solicitation from the KJ to the KJI to order the establishment of the JJ to the KJ, which is scheduled to order from H in the office of the director-general of the Si-Eup-Myeon, in order to be located in the Si-Eup-Myeon. Around February 26, 2013, the Defendant ordered the KJI to the KJA by means of a private contract at KRW 542,30,000.

In addition, around March 2013, the Defendant received KRW 20 million in cash in return for the order for the above construction work from H in the event that the Defendant stopped on the road in front of the front door-to-on viewing.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe of KRW 20 million in relation to the public official's duties.

3. The judgment of the court below

A. Although the Defendant consistently received I’s Pamplet from H with respect to the instant construction project, the Defendant stated that he/she did not receive KRW 20 million in relation to the instant construction project from H to the lower court’s court. However, the Defendant stated that he/she did not receive KRW 20 million from H.

B. Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the facts charged of the instant case, L’s statement, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, asked H to help and help H receive the instant construction work, and when I received the said construction work, it is ambiguous how the said money was used. As such, it is the fact that H’s statement supports the method of preparing a bribe offered to the Defendant during H’s statement, but it is directly admitted as evidence for proving the facts charged.