The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months and fine of 40 million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of 6 months.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal: The court below rendered a judgment of innocence on the part of the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the law and de facto influence, which is the elements for the establishment of the crime of accepting bribe by Defendant A and the crime of receiving bribe by Defendant B, and rendered a judgment of innocence on the extension of the judgment, and rendered a judgment of acquittal on the part of the charge of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Bribery and Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter “Regulation on Aggravated Punishment

However, Defendant B served as a superior of X slope who is a person in charge of gambling site investigation, and X was the head of the team before the cyber investigation team was moved to the cyber investigation team.

Considering the fact that Defendant B was the strong team of the Q police station and was the strong team leader, Defendant B was in a position to exercise the legal and factual influence against X.

Defendant

Considering the status A (Reduction), the relationship between the defendant A and the defendant B (the status that the defendant A served as the superior of the defendant B at the former workplace), and the circumstances in which the defendant A received a request from the defendant M, the defendant A was in a position to exercise legal and de facto influence on the defendant B or the defendant X slope, etc.

As police officers, a large amount of money should be acquired under the pretext of promoting additional investigations in relation to the investigation duties of police officers of the same police officer, and the defendants should be held responsible corresponding to the nature of the crime.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s defense counsel in the scope of adjudication is not subject to adjudication of this Court on the part of the charge of violating the Regulation on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.

The argument is asserted.

According to the records, the court below committed a crime of concealing criminal proceeds on the premise that the defendant B is money received as a bribe unless it is recognized that the defendant B received a bribe.