Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B and C are not guilty, respectively, against Defendant B and C.

A. Regarding Defendant B and C’s acceptance of KRW 20 million on December 2, 2008, Defendant B and C, in light of the following: (a) the statement on the source of the repayment amount, the timing and circumstances of the repayment, etc. of Defendant B and C is reversed without any inconsistency; and (b) the transfer of the bribe to Defendant C is not only a case where Defendant B received a bribe with an account; and (c) the method of repayment was smuggling, it can be deemed that Defendant B received a bribe of KRW 20 million from Defendant C.

In addition, with regard to the receipt of financial gains from the loan of KRW 10 million on February 18, 2009, Defendant B may have a direct or indirect influence on the case that was investigated by the same metropolitan investigation unit, Defendant B received the above KRW 20 million from Defendant C, Defendant B received the above KRW 10 million from Defendant C, and the additional time of borrowing KRW 10 million may be included in the scope of business of the metropolitan investigation unit, and Defendant B borrowed KRW 10 million from Defendant C in light of the fact that the duty of regulating the crime of illegal game places may be included in the scope of business of the metropolitan investigation unit, it can be deemed that the borrowing of KRW 10 million from Defendant C is related to the duties of Defendant B and is related to the duties of the Defendant, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendants.

B. As seen earlier than Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, KRW 20 million, which Defendant B received from Defendant C constitutes a bribe, and Defendant A knowingly received and concealed the above money amount equivalent to criminal proceeds from the crime from Defendant B, the lower court’s finding the Defendant not guilty is unlawful by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence)’s assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and the prosecutor raised the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and the ancillary facts charged as the following third-C.

As seen in the subsection.