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

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

Defendant .

A. Defendant A’s sentence (a fine of KRW 20 million, additional collection) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts falls short of receiving money in the name of rebates from Q, but the amount is not clear, but does not reach KRW 33 million. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 15 million, additional collection) on the Defendant is too unreasonable; and

C. Defendant C1’s mistake Defendant C1’s receipt of the money in the name of rebates from Q, but the amount is not clear, but does not reach KRW 33 million. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 15 million, additional collection) on the Defendant is too unreasonable; and

D. Defendant E-1 did not receive any money from Defendant E in the name of rebates from Y. (2) The sentence (a fine of KRW 7 million and an additional collection) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant F1) In the first half of the year 2012, the Defendant received money in the amount of KRW 12 million from Q in the amount of KRW 9 million, and there was no fact that the Defendant received KRW 36 million in total from January 2012 to December 201 of the same year, such as the instant facts charged, and in particular, there was no fact that he received money directly from Q after July 2012. 2) In particular, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 15 million and a penalty of KRW 15 million) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

F. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant D and E) in the original trial is difficult to believe that the statement of Y in the investigative agency after consultation with the Defendants was reversed. In full view of the statement of Y in the investigative agency and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently found that the Defendants received the same amount of money as the facts charged as the rebates. 2) The lower court sentenced the Defendants to unjust sentencing (defendant B, C, D and E).