The case reversing the original judgment on the ground that there was an error of law that imposes more punishment than the law at the time of trial was imposed on the heavier punishment.

The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is amended by Act No. 3280, which was promulgated on December 18, 1980. According to Article 2(1)2 of the amended Act, if the amount of the accepted amount is at least two million won but less than twenty million won, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years. Thus, the so-called "Defendant 1 who accepted the accepted amount of KRW 1.5 million" can be punished by the punishment under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below's judgment that was applied to the above Act at the time of an action shall be subject to the minor trial pursuant to Article 1(2) of the same Act. Thus, the court below's judgment that was applied to the above Act at the time of the act cannot be escape from reversal because it is improper.

Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 361-5 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

October 25, 1957, 4290 Form 298 (Supreme Court Decision 4954 delivered on October 25, 1957, Decision 1(8)122 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (80 Mahap243)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, and by imprisonment for a period of eight months, respectively.

The ninety-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment is suspended for three years for Defendant 1 and 2, and for one year for Defendant 3, respectively.

Defendant 1’s money KRW 1,50,000 and KRW 2,700,000 from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1's defense counsel is that when the same defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the course of the crime of this case, the court below erred in violation of the same Act although the law cannot be applied according to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes since there was a change in the law after the crime was committed, the judgment of the court below was erroneous, and the second point is that the sentencing of the defendant against the same defendant is too unreasonable. The second point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 2 and his defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below against the same defendant is too unreasonable. The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 3 is that the sentencing of the court below against the same defendant is too unreasonable. The second point is that the court below's sentencing against the same defendant is too unreasonable.

First, according to the reasoning of appeal by Defendant 1, the judgment of the court below and its finding facts, the amount of the acceptance of a bribe of this case that Defendant 2 had received in connection with his duties is KRW 1,50,00,00 at the time of the original judgment. The court below decided that the so-called so-called "the Act was amended by Act No. 3280, enacted on December 18, 1980, and Article 2 (1) 2 of the amended Act was amended by Act No. 3280, which was enacted on December 18, 1980, and if the amount of the acceptance was more than two million won, but less than twenty million won, it shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than five years, and the defendant's above so-called "the amount of the acceptance of a bribe of this case" shall not be subject to punishment by the court below, and it shall not be exempted from punishment of the defendant under the same Article 129 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act.

Next, in full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the defendant 3's assertion of mistake of facts, it shall be sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts at the time of original adjudication against the same defendant, and there is no other evidence to deem that the above fact-finding with respect to the same defendant was wrong, and there is no reason for the same defendant's assertion.

Finally, considering the reasons for appeal by Defendant 2 and the remaining reasons for appeal by Defendant 3, the above Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means, consequence, etc. of the crime and all the circumstances shown in the arguments, the sentencing against the same Defendants is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is judged again after pleading.

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the first and second crimes of offering of bribe shall be subject to punishment for the same offense; Article 129(1) of the same Act provides that the first and second crimes of offering of bribe shall be subject to punishment; Article 227 of the same Act provides that the first crimes of offering of bribe shall be subject to punishment for the second and fourth crimes of offering false bribe; Article 133(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall apply to the second and fourth crimes of offering false bribe; Article 30 of the same Act provides that the second crimes of offering false bribe shall be subject to punishment for the second and fourth crimes of offering false bribe; Article 133(2) and (2) of the same Act provides that the second crimes of offering false bribe shall be subject to punishment for the second and fourth crimes of offering false bribe; Article 133-3 of the same Act provides that the second crimes of offering false bribe shall be subject to punishment for each of the crimes of offering false punishment for the second and second crimes of defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)