All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the remainder other than the receipt of money and valuables from AF Representative AG is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the referral of matters belonging to public officials’ duties.

A) Regarding the facts charged that the Defendant received money from the K (J) representative, there is only the fact that K participated in a sub-subcontract of the subcontracted construction and received the construction cost after performing the subcontracted construction work, and there is no fact that K received the construction cost by taking advantage of the status of the Defendant, which is the same as that of the superintendent of the Office of Education, so that it may receive the construction or supply the materials, and that it has received the said payment.

B) With respect to the facts charged that the representative of the LAC, the LAC, and the AZA receive money and valuables from each representative of the LABA (representative AC), the Defendant had conducted business activities against the public official and received fees in return for such activities in accordance with the agreement of the branch office that was concluded normally with the above company.

As such, the Defendant’s act does not constitute “mediation of matters belonging to the duties of public officials” under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is premised on another person’s business since it conducted business

C) With respect to the facts charged that the defendant received money from the representative ATS AT, the defendant would deliver the LED lighting, etc. to the G Office of Education in the G Office of Education by taking advantage of his/her position to the G Office of Education.

There is no fact that the proposal was made, there is no fact that AT made a fee agreement with the AT, and it is merely a receipt of money given by AT without being rejected in the first place, "I would pay the money later", and it is not a receipt of money and valuables in return for the good offices belonging to the duties of public officials.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of two years and six months, additional collection of KRW 281,413,430) is too unreasonable.