The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

D Imprisonment with prison labor of 6 years and fine of 300 million won, Defendant A with prison labor of 3 years and Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant either conspired to commit the crime of bribery or did not participate in the crime, and did not have the intent to commit the crime of bribery.

On June 26, 2015, the Defendant was aware of the fact that KRW 100 million was delivered to B in the same place after receiving W’s telephone, and was given and received as the borrowed money.

The defendant did not attend the scene of KRW 200 million.

The defendant does not know about how W and C procured KRW 300 million and delivered it to B.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, and fine of three hundred million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant recognized the crime of violating the Local Education Autonomy Act (hereinafter “Education Autonomy Act”), and is disputing the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine only for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

A) Whether a joint principal offender was established or not, the Defendant offered opportunities to commit the crime of bribery and offered money to D and thereby facilitating the crime of bribery and bribery to D, A, and C by delivering words and money. As such, the Defendant conspired to commit the crime of bribery and bribery, aside from aiding and abetting D’s crime of bribery and bribery.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, where both a fine and a fine are imposed, should be interpreted to concurrently impose a fine on a person who benefits from acceptance of bribe.

Since the Defendant did not acquire the benefit of the instant case, a fine may not be imposed concurrently.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, and fine of three hundred million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

C1) Considering the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the relationship between the Defendant and W, and D, and the circumstances leading up to the delivery of KRW 300 million to D, the Defendant, who received a request for a bribe again from A upon D’s request, delivers the request to W.