The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for nine years and a fine of eight hundred million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) (1) around July 24, 2009; (2065 million won around July 27, 2009; and (a) around 35 million won from B, the Defendant received KRW 265 million from B, not around July 24, 2009; and (b) at the request of the PP Mayor, received the delivery of KRW 265 million; and (c) on that ground, the Defendant received the delivery of KRW 30 million at the request of the PP Mayor. In addition, the Defendant was punished for the crime of good offices and bribery under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it constitutes a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

shall not be punished for such reason.

(B) The amount of KRW 35 million that B delivered to S around July 27, 2009 was directly received and consumed by S and C in accordance with the pre-distribution agreement, and the Defendant did not receive or use the said money, and thus, the said money cannot be held liable for the crime of bribery even to the above money.

(C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that it recognized the responsibility for the crime of referral and acceptance of the entire KRW 300 million.

(2) On August 2009, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the part of the charges, although the Defendant did not receive the said money under the pretext as stated in its holding, even though it did not have any fact that the Defendant received the money for KRW 30 million from around October 18, 201, 40,000,000 among the first patrolmen, KRW 20,000,000,000, 300,000,000,000, and around October 2009, and around May 18, 2010.

(3) Although there is a fact that the Defendant received the above amount of USD 9,000 in the middle of December 2009, this is merely a payment to the Defendant under the simple title, and the lower court did not have a duty relationship, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.