All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts was that the security guards who helps Defendant B engage in congratulations marriage and construction work for Defendant B’s early marriage only paid KRW 1 million to Defendant B at its meal cost, and there was no unlawful solicitation among them.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B, and C: each of the fines of KRW 9 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of taking the part in the crime of occupational breach of trust against Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the term “illegal solicitation” does not necessarily require the degree of occupational breach of trust. If it is contrary to social rules or the principle of good faith, it is sufficient to determine it, it must comprehensively consider the content of solicitation, the amount of compensation related thereto, form, and the integrity of transactions, which are legal interests protected, etc., and the Defendant does not necessarily require explicit solicitation (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11784 Decided February 24, 2011). The Defendant asserted to the same purport at the lower court. However, in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court, inasmuch as the Defendant explained the specific circumstances of the instant case, there was an implied solicitation that, at the time of paying KRW 1 million to Defendant B, there was an implied demand for supervision in the process of construction.

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the above facts and judgment of the court below after comparing them with records, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment.

The court below held that Defendant B’s statement that Defendant B’s payment of KRW 1 million to Defendant B was made on the grounds that Defendant paid KRW 1 million to Defendant B in the light of the judgment No. 13, and that Defendant B paid it under the name of his axis.

Although it is alleged, the defendant is stated as the assertion.