The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) only received a bribe of KRW 12 million, which was offered to Co-defendant B of the lower judgment (hereinafter “B”), and it cannot be readily concluded that the said returned money was a bribe that the Defendant gave to B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which collected 12 million won from the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the fact that the defendant is against the law, the punishment imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection 12 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s crime committed by the public prosecutor was serious and bad, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the collection of additional charges (1) If the consignee of the relevant legal principles has kept a bribe as it is and returned it to the receiver, it shall be confiscated and collected from the receiver.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do2783 delivered on February 28, 1984). However, if a bribe recipient consumess the amount received as a bribe, then the amount equivalent to the amount was returned to the receiver.

The equivalent amount shall be collected from the consignee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do1083 Decided October 28, 1986, 200 won (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1083, Oct. 28, 1986). (2) According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to 2 million won which was granted on April 15, 2012, it can be recognized that B received from the defendant as the expenses for training in China, and M has preserved it by delivering 2 million won back from the training in China to M.

However, evidence supporting the fact that B delivered by the Defendant to M on April 15, 2012 to B is a KRW 2 million itself is only the statement of B, and it is prepared separately after B consumeds all or part of the amount of KRW 2 million granted by the Defendant in the training of China.