The judgment below

The guilty part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be sentenced to six months of imprisonment and a fine of five million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the acceptance of bribe on December 15, 2008), with respect to the acceptance of bribe on December 15, 2008, D asked the head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Office M&A on the Defendant’s full-time name, to find employment for his own children. If the Defendant, who is his successor, received a bribe from D in relation to his duties even if he did not directly arrange for employment, the Defendant’s non-purchase of the Defendant’s occupational act was infringed. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant on the unjust sentencing (two months of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and eight million won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant, at the trial before remanding, argued to the effect that the fact that the bribery was accepted on December 30, 208, was erroneous, but the defendant stated to the effect that the part of the bribe was not disputed at the trial after remanding. The above argument is deemed to have been withdrawn.

2. Determination

A. Article 2(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 919, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that a person who commits an offense prescribed in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine of between two and five times the amount of the accepted bribery for such offense.

However, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant committed a crime under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the receipt of bribe on December 30, 2008 and the receipt of bribe on January 21, 2009, but omitted the imposition of fines under Article 2(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in determining the Defendant’s punishment.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is about the necessary concurrent imposition of fines.