The judgment below

Among them, it is against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant A.

1. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor held that the defendant A applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) among the facts charged against the defendant A and the facts charged against the defendant B as stated in the column of "the summary of the public prosecutor's office". The subject of the judgment was changed by this court. The court below sentenced the defendant A to a single punishment by deeming the above part and the remaining facts of the crime which the court below found guilty as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A and the part against the defendant B cannot be maintained further in this respect.

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for reversal of authority, the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Defendants, and Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court as the grounds for appeal.

2. Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (AV) (A) the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) W consistently states that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 50 million to the Defendant in relation to this part is not a name of non-funds, but a solicitation for tax reduction and exemption; and (b) Defendant A is a separate legal entity and Defendant A was in a position independent of the vice-head of the J University Industry-Academic Cooperation; (c) in light of the fact that Defendant A was in a position separate from the vice-head of the J University Industry-Academic Cooperation; and (d) the Defendant arranged the cooperation between the Seocho-gu Office and the J University for the purpose of tax reduction and exemption

may be seen.

2) Determination (A) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows.

J Institute appears to be a clerical error in the “AE graduate school” described in the judgment of the court below of the Y graduate school and the AI graduate school around November 201.

corporation. In order to transfer.