The judgment below

It is due to the creation of the non-funds of USD 3850,000 among them.

1. The decision of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although each of the facts charged of this case is found guilty as follows.

A. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlements) due to the raising of non-funds of USD 3850,000 (Article 1 of the facts charged) (Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (Article 1 of the facts charged) for the offering of rebates to the ordering entity is an official announcement of the practice of the construction industry, and L, which reported to the Defendant that the Defendant would have been bound to create non-funds for the offering of rebates to a person with a total number of years of business receiving the demand for rebates from the ordering entity of Vietnam road construction. In light of the fact that L, which reported to the Defendant, reported to the Defendant, “on-site measures against the ordering entity’s demand for rebates” means not only the raising of non-funds for the offering of rebates, but also the conclusion of a service contract with N, etc. by approving it.

may be appointed by a person.

B. In light of the following: (a) the receipt of property in breach of trust from P (the part on charges of breach of trust) ① the content of a design service contract and a loan certificate written between Q and P, and various circumstances at the time of granting money, etc., Q receives money from P is merely the most favorable to design service cost and loan; and (b) in fact, it is the consideration for illegal solicitation against the Defendant, such as S’s orders for construction works.

② In recognition of the fact that the Defendant had been supported by the cost of living to Q Q through wife, the Defendant had P deliver the amount of money equivalent to the cost of living to Q.

As long as the Defendant had borne living expenses of Q as above, Q may be assessed as having received the above money in the same way as the Defendant directly received, regardless of whether the Defendant had the obligation to support Q.

(c)

The issue of interference with bidding (the facts charged).