Defendant

M. 1 year of imprisonment and fine of 8,000,000 won, Defendant A.

A. Each punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant M (one year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of 10,000,000 won, and a surcharge of 4,945,205,00 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (1) With respect to Defendant A’s second original adjudication of mistake of facts, Defendant A did not have received KRW 5 million in cash from D on October 8, 2010.

(2) The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A (the first instance court: imprisonment of one year, a fine of eight million won, a surcharge of 299,195,000 won, a surcharge of two hundred won, and the second instance court: imprisonment of five months and imprisonment of two months, a surcharge of two million won, and a surcharge of 13 million won) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination- Defendant A filed an appeal against the above judgment of the court below, and the court of the court of the first instance decided to hold the above appeal jointly. The crime of violation of Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of Article 38(3) at the time of the second judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part concerning the crime of violation of Article 3

On the other hand, where two punishments are sentenced for each crime before and after a final judgment, and the principal sentence is deemed to be a separate punishment, but where one punishment is sentenced for each crime before and after a final judgment, the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to be indivisible. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below of the second instance shall not be reversed in its entirety.

However, the judgment below has the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

Even if Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

3. The part that Defendant A paid KRW 5 million in cash to Defendant A on October 8, 2010 from the investigative agency to the trial court is consistently stated as follows: (a) the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts regarding Defendant A is examined; and (b) D has consistently stated the part that Defendant A paid KRW 5 million in cash.