A. The lower court accepted X’s statement without credibility and convicted this part of the facts charged, although Defendant A received money from X as the price for the waiver of W delivery and received money from X, Defendant A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the criminal intent for the acceptance of good offices and good offices, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing 1) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 15 million; penalty of KRW 4.62 million; penalty of KRW 7 million for Defendant B; and penalty of KRW 10 million for Defendant C Co., Ltd.) is too unreasonable.

2) The above-mentioned sentence that the prosecutor ordered Defendant A to the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant A), which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the following circumstances: (i) AK, a person in charge of the purchase of W at the time of residence, gave X the contact information of the Defendant A to X, and (ii) X did not do W installation work as a W supplier; (iii) Defendant A’s management C merely performed W installation work as an electrical construction company, and did not supply W, so the two competing companies were in the relation of the above two competing companies, depending on the difference in business areas.

Therefore, X cannot be seen as having requested Defendant A to waive the delivery of W or there is no reason to pay the money in return, and ③ X’s statement cannot be seen as having been false due to the lack of consistency, specific and mutual inconsistency between the main parts, and thus, X’s statement is necessary to gather Defendant A until X is in charge of its punishment, or by making a false statement.

shall be deemed to be.