The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, C, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years and fines for 250 million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: In a mistake of mistake of facts and mistake of unfair sentencing 1), barring any special circumstance, Defendant A omitted the name of each Defendant in the relevant item of each Defendant, barring any special circumstance. The loan money received from this W and AB is not a bribe. Moreover, the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the tender obstruction is nothing more than aiding and abetting. Although the Defendant denied that there was no participation in the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant admitted that the Defendant was aiding and abetting on the first day of the trial of the first instance court. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (7 years of imprisonment, 40 million won

B. Defendant B: The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles; 1) mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act; rather, the Defendant’s money received was merely remuneration based on his performance, not remuneration or mediation. Nevertheless, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing ( imprisonment and two years and six months and six months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D: The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and additional collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant E: The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, community service, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor ex officio determination (Defendant A) applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with regard to the obstruction of tender among the charges against the Defendant, as stated in the “Revised charges” as stated in the “Revised charges”), and this court permitted the amendment, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.