A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

The sentence (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) of the public prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

B (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant was investigated by any of the subordinate branch offices of the Council in collusion with A around March 2014.

AC received KRW 50 million from AC to resolve tax evasion cases.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Judgment

Defendant

With respect to A’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A, the sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the sentencing is determined within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the record in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the reason for the illegality of sentencing asserted by the prosecutor or the Defendant has already been determined by the lower court.