The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A and fines of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B’s punishment (the imprisonment of two years, additional collection, Defendant B: the imprisonment of one year) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (the defendant E) and the defendant A are fully able to fully recognize the implied or implicit public offering, even if they did not explicitly make a public offering. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant C, D, F, and G) on the grounds that the sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant C: 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for 8 months; fine of 1 million won; community service order of 120 hours; Defendant D’s suspended sentence of 4 months; Defendant F, and G: each fine of 2 million won is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits an offense provided for in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine of not less than double but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery amount prescribed for the relevant offense. The lower court acknowledged Defendant A as guilty of the acceptance of bribe, but omitted the concurrent imposition of a fine pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Thus, the part of the lower judgment

B. (1) The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the Defendant E of the Defendant of the Defendant of the public prosecutor (1) but acknowledged the fact that Defendant E purchased a total of KRW 14,498,00 in four times from A, and further, considering whether the Defendant conspireds with A and embezzled the instant universal seeds, the lower court asserted that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant did not know that the instant universal seeds offered by A were unlawfully embezzled, and that there was no conspiracy with A, with the Defendant at the investigative agency and the lower court.