The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

It is true that the defendant mispers the defendant's 50,000 won or more of the defendant's 500,000 won is put in L's main money.

However, this is merely the name of meal expenses to the L who is living in the investigation of the D missing case, and there is no fact that the request was made for the investigation of the defendant in relation to the above case.

In the end, the above money was not a bribe to a public official with respect to his duties, but was given a bribe according to the need for the doctrine of social norms or for the doctrine of social friendly relations, and was not given a bribe due to the lack of relevant duties.

The punishment of the court below (3 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

On June 28, 2010, the fourth sentence among the facts charged by the prosecutor who was in charge of the above murder was investigated by the department of the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police Station K division, which was in charge of the above murder, and was asked to attend several times from L of the above K division, but was refused to attend this time on January 5, 201, the above L did not appear to be his own J office in Seoul, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, which was asked to receive a request for attendance again from the above L on January 10, 201, and the above L did not contact himself or to request that he would not investigate him as a person for murder, and added the above L's duties to the above L' which had arrived at the above Defendant's office by providing the above 50,000 won in total, 510,000 won, and 50,000 won in a bribe.

The judgment of the court below was no longer maintained because it applied for permission to amend the bill of amendment to the contents of the amendment, and this court permitted it to change the contents of the judgment.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

(b)if any;