B. Acceptance of bribe

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Offering of bribe;

(e) Misappropriation;

2.d. (e) B

Law Firm Nung (Defendant B)

Attorney AO

Law Firm C (Defendant B)

Attorney AP

The defendant A collected KRW 179,00,000 from the defendant. The defendant B's appeal is dismissed.

The sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants (the Defendant A: 9 years of imprisonment and the fine of 258 million won, Defendant B: imprisonment of 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A

In light of the contents, means, and consequences of the instant crime, etc., the Defendant, as the team leader in charge of the management, etc. of various electronic signal facilities related to the operation of a power plant at the High Atomic Energy Headquarters, is a large amount of money received or received from a large number of companies over several years by recognizing that he/she was his/her lawsuit, taking advantage of his/her status, and taking advantage of his/her status, and other circumstances such as the receipt of the said money from a large amount of money to KRW 179,00,000.

However, with regard to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), the defendant is deemed a public official, not a public official, but a public official under the laws and regulations, and the highest amount of the bribe received at one time is 30 million won, and the defendant was employed in a high-ri nuclear power plant and served in good faith for about 30 years, and there is no record of criminal punishment other than the fine imposed under the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant has a profound personality and behavior, family relationship, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc. of this case. In full view of the various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

The Defendant’s statement of the fact, such as offering of a bribe, etc. at an investigative agency, led to the confession of the instant crime and his mistake in the investigation, and the fact that it appears to have contributed to the localization of nuclear power plants parts while operating a relatively sincere company, etc., and thus, has favorable conditions as claimed in the Defendant’s appeal grounds.

However, the Defendant’s crime of this case is a large amount of 200 million won for its employees under the pretext of providing convenience related to the supply contract while running a company that supplies to a nuclear power plant, a national key facility, and thus requires a strict punishment in that it seriously undermines the public’s trust in reliance on the safety of a nuclear power plant by causing considerable doubt about the safety of a nuclear power plant. In addition, in full view of the various sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, circumstances leading to this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering all of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s appeal ground for appeal is unreasonable since the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too excessive.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant A is well-grounded, the part against the defendant A among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant B is judged as follows. Since the appeal by the defendant B is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4)

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

Since the criminal facts and the summary of evidence against Defendant A recognized by this court are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment below, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2(1)3 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (the receipt of a bribe on January 17, 2012 and the imposition of fines necessary) and Articles 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the receipt of a bribe on September 201, and the choice of imprisonment and the imposition of fines necessary both), Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (excluding the above two crimes, the fact of the receipt of a bribe on January 17, 2012, and the concurrent imposition of fines), Article 357(1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with the largest penalty

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The latter part of Article 134 and the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

Judges Song Jin only

Judges Kim Jae-chul