1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and D

A. Article 5 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that "the officer or employee of a financial institution" is "related to all the business affairs dealt with while in his/her position." When the officer or employee of a financial institution receives money and valuables or other benefits from his/her customer from his/her customer, he/she shall be paid to him/her to him/her to him/her from his/her customer, which he/she received or received from his/her customer from his/her customer, and it shall not be deemed that he/she has nothing to do so with his/her duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where he/she can be clearly recognized that his

In addition, in cases where the nature of money and valuables received by officers and employees of financial institutions under Article 5 of the aforementioned Act as consideration for duties and cases concerning acts other than duties are inseparably combined, such money and valuables have the nature of as consideration for duties inseparably indivisible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4397, Sept. 29, 201). However, in cases where the money and valuables were received over several occasions and there is room to see otherwise as to whether such money and valuables were related to duties for each act of giving and receiving, it is necessary

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12642 Decided January 12, 2012). (B)

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the court below is a algorithm strategy delivered by Defendant A and B while Defendant D serves as the deputy head of IT support department of IT support corporation (hereinafter “AE”).