The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months and fine of 50,000,000 won, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the public prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts against Defendant C) could find the Defendant guilty of forging private documents and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

Defendant

A (Factual misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing) The defendant only received KRW 5 million from B under the pretext of acceptance and treatment.

B’s statements are made to the effect that they correspond to the facts charged, but in light of the fact that there is a false motive for B’s statement that the statements are inconsistent with the facts charged, that there is no consistency in the statements, lack of specification in the content of delivery situations or delivery methods, and that B’s statement is to be mitigated to its liability for a crime.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (Unfairly Undue) The imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “Specialized Family Act”) provides that any person who commits an offense provided for in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine not less than double but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery amount prescribed for the offense. The lower court is clear that Defendant A committed an offense provided for in Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, even though he/she committed an offense, it has omitted the concurrent imposition of a fine pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Specialized Family Act with regard to the portion received after December 26, 2008. Thus, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant A in its judgment is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine of Article 2(2) of the Specialized Family Act and thus, it cannot be exempted from the reversal.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do4260, Jun. 10, 2011). However, even if there are grounds for ex officio reversal, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is also examined in the following paragraphs.