The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

3.Provided, That the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the point of granting a bribe No. 2-A and (b) of the facts stated in the judgment below), the Defendant asserted only on the ground of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the offering of a bribe under this part of this part, and added the grounds for appeal on April 22, 2020, after the submission period of the written reasons for appeal, to the statement of the defense counsel’s opinion on June 20, 2020, on the ground of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the giving of a bribe.

This will be examined below.

The defendant was not involved in the offer of a bribe by I and J as stated in the facts constituting the crime No. 2-A and B of the judgment below, and there is no motive or reason to participate in it.

After I and J granted a bribe to K, the Defendant became aware of the fact on March 8, 2017.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by the testimony of I and J without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a joint principal offender, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal ex officio before determining the grounds for appeal.

In this Court, the prosecutor applied for the modification of an indictment with the content that the defrauded amount of the facts charged concerning the fraud was changed from “186,975,128 won” to “151,673,290 won,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court.

This part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles against the judgment of the court below still exists.