Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) through misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant A merely borrowed each amount of money as indicated in the judgment of the court below from Defendant B and C due to insufficient economic circumstances, but did not receive any bribe in relation to his duties, but did not have such awareness.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the amount equivalent to the financial profit as a bribe by Defendant A received each amount of money from Defendant B and C as the borrowed money under the circumstances stated in the judgment below as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of bribery acceptance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (including six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part on the grounds), Defendant B, and C’s statement at the court below and the investigative agency, the court below found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged on the ground that each of the above amounts was a bribe, although it was sufficiently recognized that Defendant A received KRW 20 million from Defendant B, and Defendant B and C provided the above amounts as a bribe, the court below found Defendant B and C not guilty of all of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on bribery and the crime of bribery, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence for Defendant A, two million won of each fine for Defendant B, and C), which the lower court sentenced to the Defendants, is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. We examined Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and Defendant A also asserted the same purport in the original trial.