A. Defendants 1) The Defendants were formally dispatched to O (hereinafter “O”) under N (hereinafter “N”) on the charge of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to “public official’s legal fiction” and “the duties” in the crime of bribery, but the Defendants were actually dispatched to N (hereinafter “O”). However, the Defendants cannot be deemed to be “N officer” deemed to be a public official in the application of the crime of bribery as they were actually employed by the O.

B) In addition, the O’s business purpose is to manufacture and sell feed, and there is no difference between the O’s business and the general company pursuing profit-making. In light of the O’s purpose of establishment, business contents, and character, the O’s business is not related to N, and the Defendants were dispatched to theO and performed the O’s business rather than the N’s duties. As such, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have received money and valuables in relation to N’s “business”. (ii) The Defendant A merely provided money from Q in a personal-friendly relationship by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to a quid pro quo relationship (Defendant A) with the need for the director’s funds, and did not receive money related to the duties.

3) Although Defendant B voluntarily surrendered, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the requirements for self-denunciation as a legally mitigated reason. 4) Unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years, fine of 30 million won, additional collection of 300 million won, Defendant B: imprisonment for 5 years, fine of 300 million won, additional collection of 280 million won, Defendant C: imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, fine of 80 million won, additional collection of 83 million won, and additional collection of 83 million won).

B. The judgment of the court below which judged that the receipt of 83 million won from U constitutes a single and continuous crime, even though it constitutes a single and continuous crime, is a single and concurrent crime, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes of bribery, or by misapprehending the legal principles.