All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by suspension of qualifications for one year, and by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine unilaterally provided KRW 10 million contained in the envelope, and the Defendant did not receive a bribe with the intention of acquisition on the ground that, at the time of receipt of the check, it was merely the fact that the Defendant had been unaware of the check, and was in custody as an intention to return the check after considering the opportunity to return the check.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of accepting bribe, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

Shebly sentenced sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of Defendant B (the 6 months of imprisonment, the additional collection of KRW 10 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The acceptance of a bribe as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine refers to the acceptance of money and valuables with the intention of acquisition. As such, the acceptance of the bribe without knowing it is a bribe, and the immediate return is made with the knowledge that it is a bribe, or the truster unilaterally takes a bribe, and thus there was no intention to obtain the bribe, such as return it temporarily after temporarily keeping it with the intention to return it in consideration of the opportunity to return it later.

If it is recognized that a bribe was received, the bribe was received.

on the other hand, once the defendant received a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, the defendant returned it later.

Even if the crime of bribery does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery.

Meanwhile, in determining whether a bribe was received with the intent to obtain a bribe, the background leading up to the delivery of the bribe, whether the bribe was not returned at any time, and the background leading up to the return of the bribe shall be considered (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9003 Decided November 28, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, namely, based on the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement, the check was made and the check was known on the same day, and the period exceeding one year thereafter.