A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part concerning determination of a crime), among the facts charged in this case, the fact that a bribe of 5 million won is granted to K on July 17, 2015 and a bribe of 15 million won is granted to K on September 2015, the lower court’s determination that the duty of selecting a subcontractor by the prime contractor of the government-funded public corporation ordered by the I group constitutes the scope of the duties of K, which is the chairperson of the military council. However, due to misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court can be deemed to mean that the expression “the duties of K” is “the duties of K,” and it is evident that the above expression is a clerical error.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to readily conclude that this part of the facts charged constitutes a duty, a person who acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around July 17, 2015, issued KRW 5,000,000 in cash to G to the effect that the Defendant, who was selected as the contractor for the AI development project project and operated by the Defendant from the company AJ that was ordered by the I military, delivered KRW 5,00,000 in cash to K, who is the chairperson of the I military council, in return for a subcontract for a part of the construction work; and (b) G delivered KRW 5,00,000 in cash delivered to K at the office located in the BF P office located in North Korea before the same day, and the Defendant offered KRW 5,00,000 in cash delivered to K as above, who is a public official, through G, as to the duties of K that is a public official, offered a bribe of KRW 5,00,000.

B) On September 2015, the Defendant offered K 15,00,000 won in cash to K in return for having K enter into a subcontract for a project for an AI development project from a limited company AJ, and offered K a bribe of KRW 15,00,000 in connection with the public official’s duties.

2) The lower court’s judgment is legitimately adopted.