[Defendant L, M] All appeals by Defendants and Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant N] Of the first instance judgment, the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant L, M (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles merely participated in the crime of violation of Q, P, A, R, and Trucking Transport Business Act as a joint principal offender and distributed profits from the above crime inside, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendants received a bribe. However, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the crime of bribery, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles of bribery, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of two and a half years of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months, 2 years of probation, and 80 hours of community service order, which was sentenced by the lower court, are too unreasonable.

(1) According to Q, P and branch owners’ statements, etc. on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant L and M, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges on the grounds that the price of the above truck number could not be specified on the ground that the above truck number could not be specified, although Q, P and branch owners’ statements, etc. sufficiently recognize the fact that the 109 general truck number that the Defendants received as a bribe is equivalent to eight million won (eight million won per unit). However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the amount of bribe, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant N, the Defendant received 10% shares of X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “X”) and BB Co., Ltd. established to engage in transportation business using the cargo car numbers received as a bribe from L, M, and the Defendant was well aware that he operated the transportation company on behalf of L, M, and the Defendant was an employee of L and M (hereinafter “G”) or did not have any capability to secure a truck number.