A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

From the defendant 50,000.

A. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) was established when Defendant A received KRW 100 million from L under a single and continuous criminal offense, and returned the above check in cash to L. Since Defendant A again received KRW 100 million in cash from L, the crime is completed only when Defendant A received KRW 100 million from L, and it cannot be viewed as an act after the fact that Defendant A received KRW 100 million from the above check, and the act of receiving KRW 100 million in cash in exchange for the above check cannot be deemed as constituting a crime separate from the above act of receiving the check. The judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant of this part of the charges on the grounds that there was a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged without recognizing the credibility of Defendant A’s statement and the statement of AB to the effect that Defendant B received KRW 30 million in relation to his duties from Defendant A, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Prior to the judgment of the prosecutor ex officio on the grounds for the above appeal, the prosecutor added "third-party brain acquisition" to the name of the crime against Defendant A and "Article 133(2) and (1), Articles 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for permission to change the facts charged against the Defendants to the following contents. Since this court changed the subject of judgment by granting permission, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's mistake or mistake.