Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of Defendant A’s punishment (a prison term of one year and six months and a fine of 45 million won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2) The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: the same as above, Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, etc., Defendant C: fine of KRW 10 million, and Defendant D: fine of KRW 5 million) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination 1) Determination 1) The following are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion against the Defendant A of both banks recognized the instant crime and against the mistake; (b) there is no past history of criminal punishment or criminal punishment heavier than that of a fine; and (c) the fact that the Defendant appears to have faithfully worked as a public official for a period of twenty years prior to the instant crime.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the receipt of bribe several times in relation to the duties of the defendant who is a public official, the preparation and use of false public documents, etc., and the total amount of bribe received by the defendant reaches 20,110,000,000, and the crime of this case requires strict punishment as it seriously damages the public trust in relation to the integrity of public officials and the purchase of the duties performed by public officials.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

2) Determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion as to Defendant B, C, and D

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and direct care.