The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence, it is recognized that the defendant, since the investigation agency, has been trying to commit the crime, appears that he actively cooperated in the investigation into the relevant crime, and that the construction project of the livestock excreta public disposal facility of this case promoted by the HA and thus, the defendant's affiliated company and the defendant could not enjoy any economic benefits. According to the evidence, the defendant is not having expressed his intention to give a bribe first to G and W who are very actively public officials, but it is expected that the above public officials would give or demand a bribe first, and the contents of the solicitation are not particularly related to the illegal or unjust business, and there is no special reason to believe that the contents of the solicitation are related to the illegal or unjust business execution, as a crime of the Road Traffic Act of 198 and the Public Official Election Act of 2006, which has not been sentenced to a fine of one million won in violation of the Road Traffic Act of 1500,000 won.

However, the criminal facts and the criminal facts of this case recognized by evidence, evidence law and legal principles are the cases where the defendant granted large amount of bribe to the above 2 public officials in total 83 million won for the purpose of allowing the F Co., Ltd. to receive the government-funded construction (the defendant is merely passive and passively responding to the above public officials' active demand for the bribe. However, in light of the progress of this case known through evidence, it is not deemed that this case does not significantly deviate from the type of the typical government-funded construction corruption which gives and receives a bribe after understanding between the public official in charge and the related business operators, so the criminal facts of this case and the criminal facts of this case, which are recognized by evidence and data, shall be considered as sentencing, not the above change, but the specific process recognized by evidence and data), and the criminal facts of the defendant, including the public officials belonging to the HA.