The judgment below

The part of conviction against Defendant A and B (including the part of acquittal in the reason) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (two years of imprisonment and additional collection of KRW 1,250,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the violation of the Private School Act in the judgment of the court below on the erroneous determination of facts, it cannot be said that Defendant B committed the crime since it did not fully approve each of the payment matters or did not actually participate in the interim decision, and it cannot be said that Defendant B committed the crime.

Even in the case of the payment of litigation costs, since the attorney's fees are actually paid to the V University, the defendant B cannot be charged with the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the Private School Act.

(2) The lower court’s punishment on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and additional collection of KRW 1,250,000) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant G (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, eight hours of community service, additional collection in 31,160,000) is too unreasonable.

(1) As to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F among the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, Defendant A, B, as the president of the pertinent university and the head of the library, or a person in charge of accounting, who ordered the construction work on behalf of the V University, and Defendant C, D, E, and F, as construction business operators, intended to directly order the construction work on behalf of the V University. Thus, all interested parties are related to the execution of this contract or construction work.

Therefore, the above defendants received money by illegal solicitation in relation to the conclusion of a contract, such as return of part of the construction cost or exemption from debts, in return for receiving contracts for construction related to the V University.