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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Defendant

B. b.

A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too uneasible.

2. Determination as to the allegation of unfair sentencing by both parties

A. The crime of interference with Defendant A’s tender constitutes a case where the fairness of tendering for a large-scale national policy project equivalent to KRW 7.1 billion is harmed.

Defendant

In addition to X, there is no case where other bidders except for X, offered the draft written request for proposal as reference material to the defense project administration, and the draft written request for proposal presented criteria and items necessary for selecting bidders, which was prepared by the defense project administration based on the written request for proposal of this case. In fact, there is a clear part that it reflects the evaluation criteria and items favorable to X in the last day of the defense project administration in the defense project administration on January 2014. The defendant can obtain information related to the tender from the defense project administration through B, who is the ordinary connection with Y, the head of the defense project administration, and the senior executive officer of the defense project administration, who was discharged from the defense project administration, and was selected as bidders for the supervision service of this case as favorable status.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the crime of giving a bribe in this case shows a flexible relationship with the Defendant, and it cannot be seen that it was conducted regardless of the order of supervision services in this case, and its nature is not good.

As the representative director of X, the Defendant, as the representative director of X, has a large amount of damage, such as occupational embezzlement, etc., such as embezzlement of approximately KRW 4.2 billion in total of X’s public funds from 2013 to 2016.

However, the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal record, and X corporation operated by the defendant is actually one of the defendants.