1. The judgment of the court below reversed the guilty portion against Defendant A.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (two years of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A withdrawn all of the grounds for appeal on the fifth day of the trial of the trial, and only maintained only the allegation of unfair sentencing.

B. Public prosecutor: With respect to the offering of a bribe by Defendant A and the offering of a bribe by Defendant B and C among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the statement made by Defendant B and C in collusion with Defendant A that directly offered a bribe to Defendant B and C has credibility, and this part of the facts charged was sufficiently proven.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the credibility of T’s statement, and found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to find the Defendant guilty. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the offering of a bribe and the acceptance of bribe, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

Although the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that he appealed from the defendant A on the date of the first trial of the trial on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor’s petition of appeal and the grounds of appeal submitted within the legitimate period did not state all the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Therefore, it is not judged separately by deeming it as a statement due to mistake.

2. In the trial of the case, the prosecutor of the amendment to the indictment applied for the withdrawal of the Defendant A’s violation of the Agricultural Products Quality Control Act and the violation of the Act on Origin Labeling of Certain Agricultural and Fishery Products (the net loss amounting to KRW 485,000,000 from November 201 to May 201) among the facts charged in the instant case, and the court permitted the withdrawal of the amendment.

However, with respect to each of the above parts which the court below judged as not guilty, the prosecutor does not appeal, and thus, is in fact subject to the trial.