Defendant

B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

1. The lower court’s progress and the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) among the facts charged against Defendant B, but acquitted Defendant B of the offering of bribe and the facts charged against Defendant A.

On the other hand, Defendant B appealed the acquittal portion on the ground of mistake of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was not an officer or employee of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the management entity specialized in improvement projects, and the amount received from M is either a loan or an investment, not a bribe.

(2) Article 84 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 9444 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) is deemed as public officials in the application of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act. The term “executive officers and employees of a rearrangement project management contractor” as provided in the above Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is highly likely to be unconstitutional against the principle of clarity in the principle of no punishment without law as it is possible to interpret the same differently, and Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is subject to aggravated punishment depending on the amount of a person who commits a crime as provided in Article 129

B. (1) The prosecutor (1) clearly stated that the offering of a bribe by Defendant B and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the offering of a bribe by Defendant A and the acceptance of a bribe by Defendant B were made by the prosecutor without considering that Defendant A were to receive money from the prosecutor, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the reversal of the statement in the court below is to be made with Q on October 18, 201.