The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant .

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant A by misapprehending the public prosecutor’s legal doctrine was in the position of a public official who can exercise de facto influence on the Director-General of Culture and Sports Tourism

Therefore, Defendant A’s receipt of KRW 51 million by Defendant A and C of “K would be allowed to be employed as an employee of the Sports and Sports Tourism Bureau through the Director-General of the Culture and Sports Tourism Tourism Bureau” constitutes referral acceptance.

Defendant

B and C’s offering of a bribe constitutes the offering of a bribe, and thus, Defendant B and C paid KRW 51 million constitutes the offering of a bribe.

Defendant

B, the accusation that Defendant B and C filed a complaint as if he had obtained money while giving a bribe to Defendant B and C constitutes a false accusation.

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the prosecutor ex officio examined the case in question, while maintaining the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant A who was acquitted by the court below in the trial of the court below as the primary charges, and the name of the crime in the preliminary charge is "Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act", "Articles 111 and 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act", and applied for amendments to the indictment in addition to the charges as stated below [the preliminary charges added in the trial], and this court permitted

As the subject of the judgment of the court was changed, the part of the judgment of the court on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant A cannot be maintained any more.

Despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants is still subject to the judgment of this court.

[The ancillary charges added at the trial].