The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 5 years and a fine of 73,00,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant did not accept a bribe from H through F, and there was no fact that the Defendant provided or partly provided information on the regulation of the game place to F or H, and did not regulate H’s game site. 2) The Defendant does not know that H was the owner of the game site at the time of crackdown on the game site located in Yangsan-si N around October 23, 2009.

B. In light of the legal principle, the crime of attempted commission of a criminal should be deemed as a kind of illegal agency which is included in the crime of attempted commission after the acceptance of a bribe. Even if it is a separate crime for household affairs, the crime of attempted commission of a criminal should be deemed as one type of concurrent crimes after the acceptance of a bribe. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which aggravated commission of concurrent crimes in view of substantive concurrent crimes is unlawful. 2) Article 131 of the Criminal Act on the crime of attempted commission after the acceptance of a bribe does not include Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which provides for the concurrent imposition of

C. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the punishment imposed by the lower court (the penalty of imprisonment for a term of six years, a fine of seven million won, and an additional penalty of thirty thousand won or more) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, and the court below rejected this part of the Defendant’s assertion and convicted all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.

Each of the H and F’s statements is partly inconsistent or partly changed due to the limit of memory for the past three years, and for such reasons, it does not seem that the H and F’s respective statements are not reliable.

In addition, F does not seem to have delivered money to the defendant.