A. Defendant A misunderstanding of facts

A. As Defendant A entered into a business agreement with I and A, purchased equipment for CCTV construction and provided labor by employing the parts of the people, Defendant A cannot be deemed to be merely a formal business agreement.

Therefore, since CCTV government-funded construction works fall under Defendant A's own duties, Defendant A does not receive money as a broker for matters belonging to public officials' duties in relation to others' duties.

In addition, as if Defendant B divided 20%'s profits, it was false to point out that it did not have much profits in the excessive demand for distribution of K in the same business relationship, and it did not actually offer a promise to offer a bribe.

B. Since the construction work No. 2-46 of the list of crimes in the holding of the court below is not the construction work subject to a free contract but the construction work of the Public Procurement Service, it is not possible for Defendant B to make a solicitation only by the J-won, and thus, the crime of offering a bribe is not established. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and additional collection) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2) The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable. (c) The prosecutor (the lower court’s sentence against Defendant B who is an unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the assertion that CCTV government-funded installation works were Defendant A’s own duties and that the Defendants did not promise a bribe to arrange matters pertaining to the duties of other public officials, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court.