The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant D.

The court below found Defendant A and B not guilty of the facts of false entry into public electronic records, etc. on March 11, 2009, and of the exercise of false entry into public electronic records, etc., and of embezzlement.

However, only the Defendants appealed against the conviction portion of the lower judgment, and the prosecutor did not appeal the aforementioned acquittal portion, and the said part is exempted from the object of public defense between the parties.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts merely introduced C and J to D, and there was no fact that Defendant A was involved in the act of delivering a bribe to C and J in return for D’s solicitation of promotion. Defendant A received a total of KRW 50 million under the pretext of delivery from D to a bribe for promotion solicitation, and delivered all of them in accordance with the purport of the receipt. Defendant A did not have any benefit to be collected as a penalty for Defendant A.

3) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of community service, 160 hours of additional collection, 50 million won) is too unreasonable. (B) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B of this case (two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable. (c) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B of this case is too unreasonable. (3) In so doing, Defendant C of legal doctrine returned KRW 25 million out of the amount received to Defendant A to D, and the amount of five million won was delivered to J upon request from D under the D’s understanding, and thus there is no benefit to be collected from Defendant C of this case.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three years of community service, 120 hours of additional collection, and 30 million won) is too unreasonable. D. Defendant D1 recognized that Defendant D received money under the pretext of soliciting the case or affairs handled by the public official in order to obtain one’s own benefits, and found Defendant D1 guilty of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant A.