2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s judgment on Defendant A’s unfair assertion of sentencing was made in the first instance, and Defendant A paid a surcharge of KRW 164 million in full.

However, the above defendant received 150 million won under the pretext of receiving a contract by solicitation from the head of Korea's P branch office of the Korea Agricultural and Fishing Villages Corporation, and the amount received under the pretext of solicitation or good offices by receiving 149 million won under the pretext of receiving a contract by solicitation from U.S. head of Korea's S branch office.

B. In order for R to deliver 80,000,000 won as a honorarium to P and U, the above defendant provided 5,000 won to V for the purpose of getting R to deliver 80,000 won as a honorarium. This does not apply to the amount granted by the above defendant to a person related to his/her duties in connection with the duties of Korea Rural Community Corporation.

In addition, considering the fact that each of the crimes of this case has significantly undermined the general public's trust in the fairness of public procurement contracts, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to Defendant B’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing data favorable to the above Defendant is the fact that the above Defendant made a confession of all of the crimes of this case while putting in depth his mistake, and that the above Defendant has no specific record of committing a crime other than being sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

However, the amount given by Defendant B under the pretext that Defendant B received a contract by solicitation from R and U is a considerable amount, and the above Defendant’s delivery to U is an amount of KRW 5 million.