The part of the defendant I against the defendant I is reversed.

Defendant

I shall be punished by a fine of 11 million won.

3.2

A. (1) Defendant F’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit, in addition to receiving KRW 10 million as a support payment for “HZ” after the two punishment systems were enforced on November 201, 201, Defendant F was received from AP (hereinafter “AP”) business operators BR in addition to receiving KRW 10 million as a support payment for “HZ”.

The defendant provided rebates to the defendant.

The statement of the DR cannot be trusted in light of various circumstances, and even based on other evidence submitted by the prosecution, it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant received rebates equivalent to a certain percentage of the prescribed amount as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, it is difficult to appropriately exercise the right of defense from the defendant's standpoint because the amount of rebates received individually and the days are not specified.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) Defendant H’s assertion that Defendant H received KRW 3,50,000,000 in total under the name of the rice base value every time when it is named from BR.

However, even according to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant received rebates as stated in the facts charged, even if the statement of BR, which the Defendant offered rebates to the Defendant, cannot be trusted in various circumstances, and based on other evidence submitted by the prosecution.

The charge against the accused is illegal against Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the time, place, and method of the crime are not specified.

In addition, the acceptance of rebates over 3 years cannot be regarded as a single comprehensive crime because it is difficult to recognize the identity and continuity of the criminal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(3) Defendant I, L, and N’s assertion that rebates was given to Defendant I, L, and N cannot be trusted.

In particular, Defendant I on January 2014