The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fines for 3,6150,000 won, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are specified as the grounds for appeal by only Defendant A, but Defendant B’s overall assertion is consistent with the purport of Defendant B’s overall assertion, so the Defendants’ common grounds for appeal are examined and arranged as the grounds for appeal.

On the other hand, the argument is the ground for appeal corresponding only to Defendant B. The judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. A) The money recorded in the list of crimes in the court below (hereinafter “instant money”) which was transferred by M to the Urban Environment Improvement Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”) in F Zones, was lent as public operating expenses of the Promotion Committee, and M was used only as operating expenses of the Promotion Committee.

Therefore, the defendants cannot be deemed to have received the above money as a bribe with the intent to obtain or return the money individually.

B) Even if a bribe of the instant money is recognized, the nature of the instant money offered by the Defendants to M is deemed as a specialized management businessman and designer of the promotional committee (hereinafter “maintenance company and designer”).

The point of time when the Defendants came to know that the Defendants were related to the duties of selection and contract maintenance is a policeman on April 201. Accordingly, the aggregate of KRW 60 million, which was delivered prior to the lower court’s order, should be excluded from the amount of acceptance of bribe. (C) The amount of KRW 50 million, as indicated in No. 2 of the lower court’s list of crimes committed by the Defendants, is the money that was disbursed by the Defendants as operating expenses of the promotion committee, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a bribe. Defendant B, as a general manager of the promotion committee, is merely a mere mechanically processed one under the direction of Defendant A, a chairman of the promotion committee, and is not a joint principal offender.