The judgment below

Among the convictions against Defendant B and the acquittals against Defendant B, the victim H is the victim.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the elements for establishing the crime of offering of a bribe and offering of a bribe as of December 8, 2011, “public official taking advantage of his/her status” refers to the status in which, regardless of the type and position of the public official, the public official in charge of the pertinent duties may have a direct or indirect relation with his/her duties and may have a de facto or de facto influence and influence (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do403, Jun. 8, 1982). Although the authority to deal with the application for suspending compulsory execution exists in a judge, the judicial assistant has a certain authority to suspend and cancel the auction procedure, and the judicial assistant is sufficient to consult with the chief in charge, etc. in performing the affairs related to auction, and as such, the defendant A, BW, is in the position to mediate the application for suspending compulsory execution of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that he is not in such status is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B) (1) The embezzlement of the money in the name of H is a juristic person established for the purpose of tax saving if many operating expenses are disbursed, there is no reason to permit H to do so, and Defendant B also used the money for an individual purpose, and it cannot be concluded that the victim H consented to this. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant B on the ground that the amount used by Defendant B was not related to the business under the same business agreement, and there was no explicit or implied consent of the victim H, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles that Defendant B consented to the embezzlement of the money in the name of AS account beyond the limit of delegation. (2) The court below's decision on the grounds that Defendant B consented to the use of the money in excess of the limit of delegation.