(b) Offering of bribe;

2.(a) B

Attorney D, Q, and BR

Attorney BS (private ships for defendant A)

Law Firm BT (SP for Defendant A)

Attorney BU, BV, BW, X, BY

Attorneys BZ, CA, and CB (private ships for the defendant B)

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment for a term of two years.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants is suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. Defendant B collected KRW 100,000,000 from the penalty.

With respect to the sentence of the court below (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of imprisonment), the defendants asserts that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

The crime of this case is committed in collusion by the Defendants to acquire a total of at least KRW 1.80,00,00 in property gains by forcing M City to purchase livestock immunity, etc. from 00,000 won, causing damage equivalent to the same amount to M City. Defendant B provided a bribe of at least KRW 100,000 in total twice to Defendant A. The crime of occupational breach of trust in this case is deemed as waste of the budget of M City and eventually, damage therefrom belongs to the entire citizens. In light of the fact that the crime of occupational breach of trust in this case is committed, the Defendants should be punished strictly.

However, on the other hand, the defendants were found to have committed the crime of this case when they were in the trial, and there was no criminal punishment prior to the trial, and the defendant Eul did not have any record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of the same kind; the defendant Eul does not seem to have any effect on the livestock immunity increase system purchased from 0; the bribe offered by the defendant Eul was immediately returned; the bribe offered by the defendant Eul was not immediately returned; the defendant Eul did not have any illegal intent due to the offering of the bribe; and the defendant Gap deposited KRW 100 million for Ma City and made efforts in good faith for the recovery of damage, such as the creation of a right to collateral security on the commercial building in his wife name; the defendant Eul deposited KRW 40 million for Ma City at the trial; further, the defendant A made an agreement with Ma at the time of the victim and the defendant Eul reached a full agreement with Ma; the defendant's circumstances of the crime of this case; the defendant's age, character and conduct, and various conditions in the records and arguments of this case; thus, the defendant's argument against the defendants are justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

【Discretionary Judgment】

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and evidence against the Defendants recognized by this court is identical to the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant laws and the choice of punishment for the crime;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 356, 355 (2), and 30 of the Criminal Act;

B. Defendant B: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 133(1) and 129(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(2),

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration Reasons for Reversal of Judgment)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant B: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Choi Jong-ap