All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is a misunderstanding of the legal principle

(A) In light of the purpose of Article 4 of the Aggravated Punishment Act and the legislative intent of Article 4 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, if a person is not a public official and is punished for bribery as a public official under the laws and regulations, the provision of aggravated punishment in Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act shall be the institution or organization prescribed in Article 4

(1) The Act on the Management of Public Institutions (hereinafter referred to as “Public Institutions Operation Act”) shall apply only to the executive officers.

(1) Of the “executive officers and employees of public enterprises” deemed public officials pursuant to Article 53, employees who do not fall under the officer under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment (hereinafter “general employees”).

(2) The lower court’s judgment that applied Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act to the Defendant, which is a government-managed enterprise and a public corporation’s general service source, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine, which applied the Aggravated Punishment Act to the crime of bribery only, and the interpretation that Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act applies to this case’s crime of bribery is inconsistent with the principle of no punishment without law. However, the lower court’s judgment that applied the Aggravated Punishment Act to the Defendant, which is not a government-managed enterprise and a public corporation’s general service source, is unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant, in the process of receiving projects from the Korea Gas Corporation, was aware of the fact that Q limited liability company (hereinafter “ Q”) committed business expenses to D in return for lawful business activities, and that Q and consortium was actually lent only the name for the formation of a consortium in fact in the above projects, but it was concluded a false subcontract between W and X (hereinafter “X”), and the Korea Gas Corporation’s amount of bribery and offering of bribe.