The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and fines of thirty million won, Defendant B imprisonment with prison labor of one year and fine of one million won.

The summary of the grounds for appeal No. 1 (Defendants 1): misunderstanding the legal principles on the constructive provision of public officials, the term of office of an officer of the redevelopment association was expired on July 23, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Defendants were appointed as the head of the partnership or a director again on October 14, 2016, and were not in the status of an officer of the partnership on August 9, 2016.

In light of the principle of strict interpretation of penal laws derived from the principle of statutoryism, the legal fiction of public official cannot be applied to the defendants.

Point 2 (Defendant A): The money that Defendant A received from K by mistake as to the amount of bribery is not KRW 30 million but KRW 20 million.

No. 3 (Defendants): misunderstanding of facts as to job relevance and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant A’s money received from K is irrelevant to Defendant A’s duties.

2) Defendant B received KRW 10 million from K as the support fund of the Social Welfare Foundation N that Defendant B was commissioned as a facility operation committee member, and thus, there is no relation with Defendant B’s duties.

(d)

Point 4 (Defendants) : Each punishment that the lower court sentenced Defendant A (five years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment, fine of KRW 60 million for three years of fine) and Defendant B (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment with prison labor, fine of KRW 20 million for two years of suspended sentence, and fine of KRW 20 million) are too unreasonable, and in particular, the amount of fine is too heavy.

Defendant

Unless otherwise expressly provided, in the event that an ex officio judgment against A is to be concurrently imposed by imprisonment with prison labor and a fine, it is unlawful to reduce the amount of imprisonment with prison labor and not to reduce the amount of fine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do3466, Aug. 26, 1997; 2008Do3258, Jul. 10, 2008). According to the text of the applicable legal provision of the lower judgment, the lower court stated that Defendant A was punished concurrently by a fine pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, while reducing the amount of imprisonment with prison labor, entered only Article 55(1)30,00 of the Criminal Act, which is the provision on the reduction of the amount of imprisonment with prison labor, and written a fine.