The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years and by a fine not exceeding 150 million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: In regard to the receipt portion of the press card, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant thought that the team was given to the entire team, and did not have any intent to obtain the press card, on the ground that there was no intention to obtain the press card.

B) As to the portion of KRW 100 million received, 3% interest agreement was made annually and KRW 100 million was borrowed. Thus, even if the Defendant earned a profit equivalent to the amount of profit, in calculating the amount of profit, only the remainder which remains after deducting the total amount of interest calculated by applying the agreed rate of 3% from the total amount of interest calculated by applying the agreed rate of 5% under the Civil Act was the Defendant’s profit, the lower court determined this part of the conjunctive facts charged, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the conjunctive facts charged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months suspension of execution, three years suspension of execution, fine of KRW 40 million,

B. Prosecutor: In light of various circumstances, such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, and relationship between the Defendant and the J, etc., the Defendant’s KRW 100 million received from J is sufficient to be considered as a bribe; however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine to have acquitted the Defendant of this part of the primary facts charged. 2) The lower

2. Part concerning misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) The lower court held that K issued a crate card to the Defendant and sent it to K as “the card used at a restaurant, etc.” and that J issued a crate card to the Defendant via K (hereinafter “I”)

The fact that "the cost of assistance to increase the lending limit or loan execution" is stated to be "the cost of assistance to loan execution", and the defendant could have sufficiently recognized the same purpose at the time of delivery of the cryp card.