1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B is reversed.

2. Defendant B’s imprisonment for eight months and fine for negligence 5,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B, originally alleged the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing as to fraud; however, Defendant B explicitly withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on the third trial date, and maintained only the unfair argument of sentencing.

Defendant

B Despite the absence of the fact that Defendant A received entertainment and money equivalent to KRW 2,33,33,00 from Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the charges of bribery 2 to 5 times each of the crimes committed on the basis of only a statement made by Defendant A without credibility. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence and credibility of bribe ex officio.

In addition, in light of the relationship between the Defendants, the entertainment and money provided by Defendant B may be deemed not to be contrary to social norms. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to social rules in the crime of bribery.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the additional collection of KRW 2,33,33) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Although the facts charged regarding the offering of a bribe to Defendant A and the bribery charge against Defendant B, once more than 3 times in the sight of the crime committed, can be found guilty on the charge of this part of the charges, the court below acquitted the Defendant on this part of the charges, in full view of the fact that Defendant B was the time when the prosecution investigation was conducted, and that the statement of Defendant A also complies with it. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B, which was unfair in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the additional collection of KRW 2,33,33,33), is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Before determining ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant B and the prosecutor, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is ex officio, the crime provided for in Article 129, 130 or 132 of the Criminal Act is committed.