All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A1 received money from N, Q, U, or B (hereinafter “N, etc.”) as stated in the facts charged, Defendant A1 is not a bribe since it was borrowed from N, etc. with a usual friendship, and it did not receive it as a consideration for duties.

2) In light of the fact that the criminal defendant paid 20 million won to N except Q, etc., the sentence (a year of imprisonment, a fine of 60 million won, an additional collection of 30 million won) that the court below sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Q, which offered the same amount of KRW 10 million as Defendant B (unfair sentencing), was punished by a fine through a summary order, the sentence sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of the amount of KRW 13 million as a bribe, although Defendant A received KRW 13 million as a bribe twice from Q. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of the amount of KRW 3 million as a loan loan around March 9, 2016, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s mistake of facts and unfair argument of sentencing

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant in this part of the facts charged is a public official (class 5 and Grade 5 and Grade 5) who, from September 7, 2012, works as K in the water supply and sewerage work site of E, executes a contract for the installation of sewerage facilities, etc. ordered by E in the water supply and sewerage work site, supervises the site, completion of construction, etc.

The Defendant, while offering convenience in relation to construction works ordered by the Si Water and Wastewater Work Office and the N, etc., received KRW 5 million from N, Q to KRW 10 million from U, and KRW 5 million from U, and KRW 10 million from B.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

2) The lower court determined that: (a) an enterprise operated by N, etc. or whose vice president is the Plaintiff, ordered the E-Si waterworks and sewerage business at the time.