The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

One motor vehicle of Band 5.0SC, seized lele.s.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding the facts concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant 1; and (b) misunderstanding the legal principles as set forth in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant transferred the 100 million won of the biter vehicle from I to bits as set forth in the judgment of the court below; (c) however, this is not related to the Defendant’s duties related to the fake case (hereinafter referred to as the “Maus R case”) or is not related to the Defendant’s duties; and (d) the Defendant was

In addition, the lower court determined that the automobile insurance premium of KRW 2,724,840 paid by I in the course of transferring the said vehicle to the said vehicle, and the acquisition tax of KRW 3,519,460, which was paid by the Defendant, constituted a bribe received by the Defendant. However, in light of the fact that I transferred the said vehicle without compensation, it cannot be deemed that the automobile insurance premium and acquisition tax constitute the gains acquired separately by the Defendant.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part can be logically related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Eassors for known know-hows) which was prosecuted on the grounds of the relationship of commercial concurrence. However, according to the written grounds of appeal, the defendant asserts it only on the grounds of appeal concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

Even if there is a relationship between the defendant's duty and the defendant's duty of 100 million won with respect to the handling of fake cases, in light of the background, timing, situation, etc. of the delivery of money and valuables, this is mainly considered as the consideration for known good faith in relation to the collection of money (hereinafter "collection of money") as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the nature of the above fake case's consideration is extremely weak.

As such, Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is a provision for aggravated punishment according to the amount of the accepted bribery, does not apply to this case, and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Code is general.