All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not issue a prior order to purchase C’s airline tickets, and only compensated C’s purchase price of airline tickets after receiving a post-report from B. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and thus adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing ( imprisonment for eight months, suspension of execution two years, and community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant requested the ticket purchase to the Defendant and did not request the purchase of airline tickets. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendant was not in charge of multi-family housing affairs at the time of receiving airline tickets from the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and the Defendant did not have a position to affect multi-family housing affairs, and thus, the Defendant’s receipt of airline tickets from B cannot be considered as a bribe

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the penalty of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, fine of 45,00,000 won, and penalty of 22,471,800 won are too unreasonable.

C. The above punishment sentenced by the prosecutor by the court below to the defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility according to the spirit of the relevant legal principle, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.