The judgment below

Among them, the part of conviction against the Defendants (including the part of acquittal) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A’s KRW 5 million on February 3, 2016, and KRW 10 million on March 8, 2016, as well as the fact-misunderstanding of the fact-finding on the fact-finding on the charge of bribery and the receipt of bribe; and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the charge of bribery and the receipt of bribe, which was remitted by misunderstanding B on February 3, 2016, KRW 5 million on March 8, 2016, and KRW 10 million remitted by misunderstanding B on March 8, 2016, and is not granted a bribe by Defendant B.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of accepting or arranging a bribe with respect to each of the above amounts.

In 2012, misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles on the acceptance of bribe and the acceptance of bribe through entertainment (except for the assertion on the amount of entertainment acceptance) were to collect criminal information from them, and the Defendant was not to provide any convenience, and the Defendant was not aware of B’s previous criminal records prior to the final sentence.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s receipt of entertainment from B in 2012 cannot be deemed as offering convenience to B prior to the offering of convenience to B, or as offering convenience to a criminal case that may arise in the course of operating the Company B in the future, or as a favorable disposition or a favorable consideration to know about the said case, and the Defendant did not recognize it as such.

In relation to this part of entertainment, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts that found the guilty of the crime of accepting or arranging a bribe in relation to this part of entertainment.

In 2015 and 2016, the misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the acceptance of bribe and the acceptance of bribe through entertainment, and the Defendant’s offering of entertainment from B in 2015 and 2016 can not be deemed as offering of convenience related to future criminal cases or prison life or good faith in light of personal-friendly relationship between the Defendant and B, etc.