All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B 1 did not have an agreement between Defendant B and C on the construction cost of a roof construction cost of KRW 8.1 million, and Defendant B cannot be deemed to have provided benefits equivalent to KRW 3.1 million for the construction cost. Defendant B thought that the actual construction cost of the roof construction would be sufficient to KRW 5.0 million, and Defendant B did not have an intention to offer a bribe since it had been executed for KRW 5 million. Nevertheless, there was an error in the misapprehension of facts in finding guilty of the facts charged against this part of the crime of aiding and abetting evidence. However, Defendant B's act does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting evidence, but Defendant B cannot be deemed as an act of aiding and abetting evidence, and Defendant B cannot be punished as a crime of aiding and abetting evidence since there was no provision to punish an attempted crime in the case of aiding and abetting evidence.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged.

B. In full view of the public prosecutor’s relationship between Defendant A and B, the reasons why Defendant A was entrusted with the roof construction work, the background of the report by Defendant B related to the roof construction work, the doubtful circumstances in the process of performing the roof construction work by Defendant A, the construction contract of Q’s civil petition system, quotation, etc. after Q’s civil petition system, and the various circumstances in which Defendant A paid KRW 5 million to Defendant A for the construction cost, and the statements that are inconsistent with the investigation agencies of Defendant A and B, etc., the fact that Defendant A received bribe worth KRW 14.5 million for the roof construction cost is recognized by having Defendant A complete the roof construction without compensation.