Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months.

. Prosecutors;

A. The Prosecutor 1) In the event of the crime of interference with the tender of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, Defendant A, and Defendant B, obtained profits of KRW 40 million, KRW 732 million, and thus, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be additionally collected. Even if the above amount cannot be seen as criminal proceeds, at least KRW 62,294,120, which is the difference between the successful bid price and the priority bid price after the completion of the contract should be additionally collected.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment; for Defendant B: one year of imprisonment with prison labor; three years of suspended execution; 160 hours of community service, Defendant C, D, and E: two years of suspended execution of each of the six months of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A, C, and D1 (Defendant C) misunderstandings the fact that Defendant C did not deliver a bidding price to other companies in the food washing machine bidding procedure Nos. 52 through 62 of the list of offenses listed in the judgment below, and there is no fact that Defendant A and B did not perform the practical duties so that S, etc. may allow the lease of military units under the direction of Defendant A and B.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (defendant A, C, and D) is so unfair that the sentence is too unreasonable (Defendant C, the presiding judge of the lower court sentenced Defendant C, E, and D to one year of a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment, but the sentence is written as two years of a suspended sentence in the sixth month of imprisonment.

One of the arguments, the data submitted by Defendant C alone is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other basis to recognize it). 2. Determination

A. In order to determine the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles or to impose confiscation or additional collection, the requirements for such deprivation or additional collection must be related to the facts charged. In the event that the facts charged are not acknowledged, it is impossible for a court to recognize the facts charged for which a separate prosecution has not been instituted and to pronounce confiscation or additional collection thereof in violation of the principle of disadvantage and disadvantage (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do700, Jul. 28, 1992). However, it does not require strict proof.