The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months and by a fine not exceeding 50,00,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) It is difficult to reliable the Defendant’s statement that he delivered KRW 10 million to the Defendant around June 22, 2012, No. 5 of the crime list No. 1 of the crime committed in the judgment of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, etc., as indicated in the judgment of the court below. In full view of the details of fund execution and other evidence cited by the court below, it was proved that the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Defendant without any reasonable doubt.

Although it is difficult to see this part, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, misapprehending the legal doctrine, etc.

B) The judgment of the court below that the defendant received the above money in relation to his duties as an officer or employee of a financial institution is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, or in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the defendant did not receive the money from the defendant to the U account, which is the creditor of the defendant, from AH operated by T in the part of paragraph (3) of the criminal facts in the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 80,000,000, an additional charge of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant’s charge of receiving KRW 3 million under the name of loan honorariums can be acknowledged, but the lower court acquitted Defendant on this part. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) as to 5 times the number of offenses listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below; (b) the background leading up to the delivery of KRW 10 million to the Defendant by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”)’s actual inspection conducted by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”); and (c) the situation at the time of delivery of money and valuables, etc., in an investigation agency and court; (d) although G bank was subject to business suspension, M is a loan period for existing loans.