A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won.

Defendant

C The above fine.

[Defendant A's criminal records] On February 12, 2009, Defendant A was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) in the Manpo branch of the Gwangju District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on November 6, 2013.

[2017 Highest 889 (Defendant A) No person shall receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or have another person offer or promise to offer such things, under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement with respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official.

1. On June 4, 2014, the Defendant violated the Attorney-at-Law Act relating to KRW 100 million was the parts of D Gun B, and on June 4, 2014, C borrowed KRW 150 million from B, a bath business entity, and delivered it to B at the time, but B, in order to raise funds to repay this instead, B was in a situation where B should repay it again, the Defendant was willing to demand money and valuables under the pretext of arranging construction works ordered by D Gun against the construction business entity.

On July 7, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the G to the actual operator G (former name H) of the F limited company (former name) and used it as a non-interest and a non-security until he/she repaid the loan to the head of B, whichever is urgent.” “When he/she lends the money, he/she may help him/her to take charge of the execution of the project, and may help him/her to take charge of the construction of the wind power generation project,” and “When he/she prepares the money, he/she may help him/her to receive a free contract from D, if he/she would be able to take charge of a free contract.”

As a result, the defendant received approximately KRW 5 million from the above G for the financial profit of KRW 100 million under the pretext of arranging the D military order construction work.

2. The Defendant and G, who violated the Attorney-at-Law Act related to the payment of a negotiated contract, are aware of the practice of exchanging about about 10% of the public supply price from the construction business operator, in order to arrange a negotiated contract ordered by D forces at the time.