The judgment below

The part of the defendant A, excluding the non-guilty part of the defendant A, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) When taking into account the process of the instant case, the process of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, E’s statement and appearance, and the name of KRW 100 million delivered by the Defendant to E, the Defendant provided money and valuables to E for the purpose of accepting a bribe.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact-finding and legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 689.60,000) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor (Defendant A) mismisunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, which led to the judgment of the court below, made changes in the indictment against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement) that was dismissed by the prosecution at the court below, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement) and the violation of the Act

Since the crime of occupational embezzlement against the defendant is recognized, the crime of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, which is premised on such act, is established.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact-finding and legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uncomparably unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s ex officio determination of Defendant A applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that the name of the offense against the Defendant was embezzled in the course of business, and that the amount of occupational embezzlement was reduced to KRW 309,153,260 on four occasions from December 29, 201 to December 31, 2013, and that the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

Since the crime of embezzlement of the above occupational crime is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of delivering a third party bribe, the crime of causing a breach of trust and the crime of causing a breach of trust committed by the court below guilty, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part of the court below's conviction and dismissal of the

However, as above.