Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the public prosecutor (the above sentence A, the defendant B: imprisonment of one and half years, the suspended sentence of two years, the defendant C: imprisonment of one year and one year of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s sentencing based on statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first instance court's sentencing should be respected in principle unless there are such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

Defendant

Examining the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of sentencing based on the foregoing legal doctrine, in addition to the circumstances described by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, the Defendant deposited KRW 35.2 million against the Victim Korea Industrial Technology Evaluation Institute four times from July 2016 to September 2016, and the Defendant deposited KRW 35.2 million in total on four occasions against the Victim Korea Industrial Technology Evaluation Institute.

In addition, the defendant is entitled to RIS in the regional leading industry.