The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 12,000,000,000.

Defendant

A The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (the amount of eight months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 10720,00) is too unreasonable.

The lower court, which omitted a fine in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is unlawful, even though it is necessary to concurrently impose a fine on the crime of acceptance of bribe with respect to the necessary fine imposed on

Although it is necessary to collect necessary additional collection in accordance with Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act against the misapprehension of the legal principle as to necessary additional collection (defendant D, E, F), the lower court omitted such collection.

Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits an offense provided for in Article 129, 130 or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine not less than double but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery in relation to the relevant offense.

However, the lower court acknowledged that Defendant A committed an offense under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, but omitted the concurrent imposition of fines under Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes when determining the punishment against Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below in this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessary concurrent imposition of fines, and the prosecutor's assertion pointing this out

Article 357(3) of the Criminal Code provides that a person who has committed a crime of breach of trust shall collect the profits acquired by such crime from necessary collection.

However, the lower court found Defendant D, E, and F guilty, but omitted collection under Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act against the said Defendants.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to necessary additional collection, and the prosecutor's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal on the defendant A's allegation of unfair sentencing is reasonable.