All appeals filed by A, C, and D and the Prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants A, C, and D (unfair sentencing) (the imprisonment of two years and additional collection; the imprisonment of one year and two years; the suspension of execution of two years and additional collection; Defendant D: the imprisonment of one year and two years; the suspension of execution of one year and two years); and Defendant D’s imprisonment of six months and the suspension of execution of two years) are too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The grounds for appeal against Defendant A and C (e.g., form of punishment) by the lower court are too unfasible to each of the above Defendants, and thus unfair. 2) The grounds for appeal against Defendant B and D (Appeal for the benefit of the Defendants) were charged on January 10, 2019 for the same type of crime, and there is also a possibility of additional indictment against Defendant B.

Accordingly, the above Defendants are appealed for the benefit of the Defendants who can be jointly sentenced.

2. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court of the relevant legal doctrine, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

Defendant

The lower court determined the sentence A and C by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant A, such as the receipt of a large amount of money and the grant of a bribe, taking into account the fact that it could have been able to reveal the whole appearance of the crime by actively cooperating in the equity and investigation with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive. Defendant C also recognized and reflects the crime, the substance of the crime, the benefits actually acquired, and the role of participation in the crime. The circumstances on each of the sentencing alleged by the above Defendant and the Prosecutor in the trial are deemed to have been taken into account by the lower court.

Furthermore, there is no new circumstance that could change the sentence of the court below against Defendant A and C in the case of lives, the trial court did not find any new circumstance.

Defendant C.