The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000, and Defendant E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Defendant A1 (related to additional collection) and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection, the Defendant returned KRW 2 million to the above E after about 10 days, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the fine of five million won, the additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) As to the acquisition of a third-party bribe on February 9, 2015, Defendant E (a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) was received for the purpose of delivering the last 2 million won of the total amount received by the Defendant from D, which was later 5 million won among the total amount received from D, not a public official, to “a reporter” rather than a public official, there is no room for establishing the crime of acquiring a third-party bribe under Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act.

B) Since the Defendant, upon receiving KRW 1 million from D, who first received KRW 3 million from D and returned it again to the said D, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection, which sentenced the Defendant to KRW 1 million.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to each argument by Defendant A

A. In light of the legal principles as to additional collection, whether it is subject to confiscation or additional collection, or whether it is subject to the recognition of additional collection, etc., it is not necessary to prove the elements of crime, and thus, it is not necessary to establish it by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). Meanwhile, in a case where a person who received a bribe returns the bribe to the receiver as it is, it may not be collected from the consignee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7702, Apr. 13, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, health class, and the defendant kept two million won, which the defendant received from E, inside the Defendant’s vehicle, and returned it to E after about 10 days.

I argue, E.S.