The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor and fines of 20,000,000 won, and Defendant B with fines of 20,000,000 won.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of suspended execution, additional collection of ten million won, and fine of five million won) are too uneasyed, which the lower court declared against the Defendants (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a defendant A).

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio as to the part on Defendant A.

Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) provides that “any person who commits a crime prescribed in Article 129, 130, or 132 of the Criminal Act shall be concurrently punished by a fine not less than two times but not more than five times the amount of the accepted bribery as prescribed for the crime.” The lower court, while recognizing that a defendant A committed a crime prescribed in Article 132 of the Criminal Act, omitted the concurrent imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Special Crimes Act. In so doing, the part against a defendant A in the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of Article 2(2) of the Special Crimes Act

3. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant B

A. The lower court, on November 22, 2012, sentenced the Defendant B to a fine of KRW 5 million in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant B’s misunderstandings and reflects the fact that Defendant B had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Trademark Act, etc. on November 22, 2012 and had been granted money as a solicitation to Defendant A, a police official, despite the grace period.

B. Defendant B is deemed to have committed the instant crime even in the relation of solicitation to A who was aware of the instant case in the course of investigating the instant case in violation of the Food Sanitation Act. The said crime was committed during the period of suspension of execution, Defendant B had been convicted of having been sentenced to criminal punishment more than 21 times, and Defendant B was currently being investigated on suspicion of having offered a bribe to military personnel, and there are other factors such as character, conduct, environment, means and consequence of the Defendant’s crime, and the circumstances after the crime.