The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A and fines of 40,000,000 won, and Defendant B.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A’s borrowing KRW 10,000,000 from C and D respectively, is not a bribe, nor a job-related nature is a bribe.

Even if it is not a bribe, it is not a bribe, but a bribe of a interpreter, the act of receiving a bribe to a passbook in the name of the mother can not be evaluated as an act of bribery itself and a separate act.

2) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

Defendant

A, while having been prosecuted only for simple bribery because there was no illegal act in relation to investigation, it is unfair to reflect such circumstance in sentencing.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the facts, Defendant B borrowed KRW 23,000,000 from C, and did not receive the consideration for good offices.

2) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

(c)

Punishment against the Defendants by the prosecutor shall be minor.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that Defendant A received KRW 10,000,000 each from C and D in relation to his duties can be sufficiently recognized.

Defendant A’s assertion that the loan was not received as a bribe, considering the circumstances described by the lower court in detail, in particular the human relations between Defendant A, C, and D, cannot be accepted.

Defendant

As seen earlier, each of the 10,000,000 won received by A constitutes criminal proceeds as a bribe, and when considering the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the judgment of the court below that recognized the act of remitting to the head of the Tong under the name of the mother as the most serious act of acquiring criminal proceeds by distinguishing the act of bribery from the act of bribery itself is justified.

B. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B’s duties as the police officer.