The judgment below

All parts against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be sentenced to two years of imprisonment and fines of 10,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) received a solicitation from W and Y as stated in the facts charged, or received money as stated in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “crime circulation table”) 1,5, and attached Table 2 (hereinafter “crime circulation table”) 3, 4, and 10 of the crime circulation table 3, 4, and 10 of the golf expenses and meal expenses are included in the scope of ordinary social intercourse. Furthermore, at the time of paying the above 10-year golf expenses, the Defendant was in charge of duties unrelated to R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”), which is irrelevant to the convenience of other companies (hereinafter “stock company”).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The reason for appeal by the defendant on September 7, 2016, which was submitted by the defense counsel within the period for submission of a legitimate reason for appeal, is merely stated as the ground for appeal by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the receipt of the above money, and no reason for appeal is stated as to the receipt of the two parts 6 re-delivery No. 5 of the crime list No. 6, and there was no reason for appeal in the course of trial at the trial.

Although the defendant's defense counsel submitted on January 19, 2017 the statement of reasons for appeal that "the document of reasons for appeal" was presented in the court below as to the receipt of the above uniforms, there was an argument in the court below that "it was trying to give money when finding the uniforms and actually paid W the price of two million won." However, the contents stated in the above document submitted after the conclusion of pleadings cannot be viewed as the ground for appeal by the defendant, and even if examining it ex officio, there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendants of the following facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.