1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too heavy or unhued, and the punishment against the defendant B (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and additional collection 29.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A who committed an offense, such as granting KRW 29.5 million to Defendant B in order to export wastes to a foreign country without permission from the competent authority, and to receive information on tendering related to waste treatment, etc., shall be liable for the relevant act.

However, taking into account the fact that Defendant A, who did not commit the same kind of crime, is breaking his mistake in depth through confinement for a considerable period of time, a significant portion of the crime of this case committed by Defendant A was generated in the course of running his own business, and there is no aspect to accept Defendant A’s appeal that the sentence of the court below is too heavy, and that Defendant A’s family, person, employee, etc. are too heavy, and the contrary assertion to the purport that the prosecutor’s appeal is rejected.

B. In full view of Defendant B’s conditions of sentencing as indicated in the lower court’s sentencing review and sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing judgment that deemed Defendant B as the primary sentencing factor, including the method and period of the instant crime, the amount of money received, the disposition taken from the company, the disposition taken against Defendant B, and the record of the offense, exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

It cannot be assessed, and there is no or insufficient circumstance or materials to deem that it is unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the course of the deliberation of the original trial (the fact that Defendant B paid the surcharge imposed by the court below does not derive any change in circumstances that can reverse the judgment below). The argument of the chief of the sentencing department of Defendant B is not accepted.

3. According to the conclusion, among the judgment below, Defendant A.