The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

193,170,00 won from the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although it is true that the defendant made a mistake of facts as to the offering of a bribe and misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant told D to the effect that "it is not good to make a contribution to theJ", D only made a contribution according to its own judgment, and the defendant has no relation to this.

Although the defendant asked H to the effect that “comford.. convenience” is “comford,” the defendant merely asked the convenience within the normal scope of business.

At the time, the Defendant and H did not know at all whether D donated to J.

Inasmuch as there was no understanding between D and H on the fact that the donation to J was a quid pro quo in connection with the H’s duties, the Defendant’s above request cannot be deemed as “illegal solicitation.”

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) has already been guaranteed the status of CCTV building business operators for four years, and there was no other pending issues related to the business during the contribution-restricted period. Therefore, there is no a quid pro quo relationship between D’s donation and H’s duties.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection 193,170,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal in accordance with the amendment of a bill of indictment is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and among the facts charged against the defendant, the part of the bribe offering in the last sentence of the indictment against the defendant was changed to "The defendant, in collusion with D, made an illegal solicitation in connection with his official duties to H who is a public official, and made a bribe to H in connection with his official duties, and applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment adding "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the law, and since this court permitted this, the part of the judgment of the court below which made it impossible to be maintained any further.

On the other hand, the court below is the defendant.