Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months and fine of 37,000.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (a two-year imprisonment and fine of KRW 37,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) From the perspective of ordinary people, the Act on the Management of Public Institutions is deemed to be the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter “Public Institutions Operation Act”).

A) Article 53 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) is known to the effect that an executive or employee of a public institution becomes the subject of the crime of bribery under the Criminal Act.

(1) Article 4 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act provides that the scope of the application of the crime of bribery shall be extended only to the executive officers and employees of a public institution. As such, it is reasonable to interpret that the application of the crime of bribery is aggravated only in cases falling under Article 4 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act. Defendant B is the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”) which is a public institution.

(2) According to Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Defendant cannot be subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act, even though he/she is deemed a public official in the application of bribery under Article 53 of the Public Institutions Management Act by falling under the “employee” and may be deemed a public official in the application of the crime of bribery. However, the Defendant cannot be subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act.

C. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant C (unfair punishment) (limited to four years of imprisonment and fine of 60,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D1. Since December 29, 2015, Defendant A, who was ordered to take advantage of the legal principles as to the duty relationship with the bribery and the quid pro quo relationship, was unable to exercise the influence or provide convenience on the construction performed by Defendant D, and Defendant D thereafter.