The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

17,183,300 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant 1 obtained a corporate card under the name of K (hereinafter “K”) from G (hereinafter “K”) from G, and used most of them as a contact with the Chinese visiting China, purchase of gift, purchase of goods of K office, transportation expenses for K’s business, etc., and the above corporate card is not exclusively used by Defendant, but also used G, N, Q, R, etc., with the total amount of bribe received by the said corporate card for personal purposes, even though the sum of bribe received by the said Defendant was 9,083,620 won during the fourth trial of this court, Defendant and defense counsel recognized the fact that the amount of bribe acquired by the said corporate card exceeds KRW 9,083,620 by using the said corporate card for personal purposes.

The court below found the amount of bribe that the defendant acquired by using the above corporate card for personal use as 19,445,851 won on the ground of a misunderstanding of facts.

B) Among the judgment below, each aviation fees, such as the No. 1 through No. 6 in the annexed Table 2, among the annexed Table 2, were invited from the Chinese government or Chinese organization to pay aviation fees, and thus, it is deemed that the association operated by G (hereinafter “I”) is an incorporated association.

A) On the other hand, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received a bribe equivalent to each of the above aviation charges from G because it has settled the aviation charges and subsequently received them from the Chinese government or Chinese organization. Each aviation charges, such as the No. 7 or No. 21 in the same crime list, are paid by G at the request of G in the course of visiting Jeju-do and female water in order to assist the K or the I Association’s business, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received a bribe equivalent to the above aviation charges from G. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.