A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of six years and a fine of one hundred million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 20,000.

The Defendant asserted that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below which recognized the fact-finding, even though there was no evidence that received KRW 100 million from J on the date stated in the facts constituting an offense, but withdrawn the above assertion on the third trial date of the court below.

However, the appellate court may decide ex officio on the grounds that affect the judgment, even where the grounds for appeal are not included in the statement of grounds for appeal (Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and where the defendant appealed only on the grounds of mistake of facts, the appellate court may ex officio reverse the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and determine a minor sentence than the sentencing of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021, Sept. 11, 1990). The same applies to cases where the defendant appealed on the grounds that

ex officio, it is recognized that the fairness and transparency in the selection of redevelopment project is damaged due to the Defendant’s crime of this case, and that the Defendant’s crime is not less complicated in that the amount of bribe is large.

However, the defendant suffered from the trial for the first time, and the defendant suffered from the trial for the second time, all of his errors in relation to the crime of this case, and divided his depth. In light of his legal attitude and statement, the truth in the light of its legal attitude and statement is deemed to exist, in applying penal provisions pursuant to the law, the defendant is in a position to be regarded as a public official; the defendant is not actively demanding a bribe to the rearrangement project management company or the F; it is not likely that the defendant received a bribe; it is not likely that the defendant would offer convenience to be selected as the contractor or the F as the contractor; and it is not possible that the F would take a bribe directly or indirectly due to an active job misconduct; it is not subject to criminal punishment except for the past two years prior to the completion of the crime of this case