The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant E and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

The sentence for E and F shall be suspended, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant E and his defense counsel withdrawn the argument for misunderstanding of facts on the first day of the trial of the party. Since the statute does not stipulate the time to issue a corrective order for illegal extension, the mere fact that Defendant E did not timely make a corrective order does not constitute a crime of abandonment of duties. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting Defendant E of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) In full view of the public prosecutor (the part not guilty of Defendant A’s bribery and good offices bribery, and the part not guilty of the offering of bribe of D), Defendant A’s status and scope of duties, and the nature of money at the time when Defendant D delivers money to Defendant A, Defendant A received a bribe with respect to the referral of matters pertaining to public official’s duties and Defendant D granted a bribe to Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The Defendants’ Defendant A and his defense counsel withdrawn the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the first trial of the party. Each punishment (i) the lower court sentenced the Defendants to each of the crimes set forth in Articles 1 through 3 in the judgment of the lower court (i) imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fines of KRW 90 million for each of the crimes set forth in the judgment of the lower court, and KRW 40 million for the crimes set forth in Articles 4 and 7 in the judgment, and (ii) imprisonment with prison labor for two years in October, 10; (iii) imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant D; (iv) one year in six months in the suspension of execution; and (v) imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant E; and (v) one year in the suspension of execution with prison labor for Defendant F is too unreasonable. 2) The prosecutor (with respect to Defendant A and D) (each punishment sentenced by the lower court for Defendant A and D is too unfford.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant E’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the duty to act for the breach of duty should be specifically performed.