The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from a collaborative company to raise operating expenses according to the request for subsidization of operating expenses from the business department of C Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C Construction”), and the head of the Construction Business Headquarters’s implicit order, such request is delivered to S through K of the head of the Construction Business Planning Group. As such, the Defendant’s interest in KRW 100 million is not deemed to have been attributed to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, which ordered the Defendant to collect KRW 100 million.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and additional collection KRW 100 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on the assertion of the assertion of the legal principles is that the value of a bribe is received by public offering or joint acceptance by many persons, only the money actually received should be collected individually and the money and other valuables should be collected equally only when it is impossible to individually identify the money and other valuables received (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2056, Oct. 12, 1993). However, even if part of the money and other valuables received are offered as a bribe to a person who is not recognized as a joint principal offender, it is nothing more than the method of consuming the received bribe. Thus, the subject of the acceptance of the bribe is the first person, and therefore, unless the second person’s offering of the bribe was conducted by the first person’s instruction, the entire amount of the accepted money should be collected from the first person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5064, Dec. 24, 2004).

like the purport of the above precedents, the recipient only delivers the amount of the funds to the other party to the crime of giving property in breach of trust, but also commits the original crime of taking property in breach of trust.