The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant B for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a punishment of three years of imprisonment, a surcharge of 131,213,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts stated in the grounds of appeal that Defendant B did not intend to gain unjust profits even by recognizing the grant of a bribe to AH and asserting that it would be prior to sentencing. However, Defendant B’s motive for the grant of a bribe appears to be for the purpose of seeking a consideration as an element of sentencing. As such, it is treated as an unfair argument for sentencing.

Even if Defendant B’s assertion as to this part of the claim was misunderstanding of the facts, the fact that Defendant B offered a bribe to AH for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefit is sufficiently recognized in light of the following: (a) the status and authority of AH recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the background leading up to the grant of money and valuables; (c) the time and amount of money and valuables; (d) AH was sentenced to four years of imprisonment as a bribe crime in relation to the instant case in the United States on October 2014; (c) Defendant B and F actively cooperated in the investigation; and (d) Defendant B’s investigation agency and the lower court recognized the criminal facts at the lower court.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in relation to the grant of a bribe to A as follows.

① Upon entering into a contract with Defendant F (hereinafter “F”) on September 29, 201, Defendant F (V; hereinafter “V”) entered into a contract with Defendant F (V; hereinafter “V”) for the installation of CCTV and mechanical fishing systems, but becomes null and void as an objection to other companies, and entered into a contract again on March 2012.

The lower court did not specify the Defendants as to what constitutes a contract, and only refers to a contract made on September 29, 201, which became null and void, in the part on criminal facts against A.

(2) The amount granted to A shall not be KRW 33 million over eight times, but be KRW 30 million over five times.

(3) CCTV;