Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

A. Defendant A1) In light of the circumstances that each ordering department did not change the business operator requested by the contracting department through consultation without any special reasons, it is difficult to view that the Defendant participated or exercised influence in the process of determining the other party to the contract. As part of the “Comprehensive Measures for New Working Environment” after the Defendant was appointed as the director of the division, the construction ordered by Defendant B among 6 interior works ordered by the accounting information and the accounting information was only one contract of July 27, 2016. The Defendant’s director of the accounting information held office from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, and it is difficult to view that there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles regarding unfair sentencing between Defendant B and the construction cost of the instant case, or by comparing the 23 interior works ordered by the CGun office with the construction cost of the instant case, which caused the lower possibility of replacing the Defendant’s work cost of the instant case to the extent that it could not be deemed that there was any error of law by misapprehending the legal principles regarding unfair sentencing among the construction cost of the instant case.