The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months and fine of thirty thousand,00,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months; fine of 30,000,000 won; penalty of 14,370,000 won; and Defendant B’s imprisonment for a period of ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant A, who is a public official of high integrity and morality, receives KRW 14,370,000 over 27 times under the pretext of giving convenience to various water supply works ordered in E by taking advantage of his/her position, and is a crime that seriously damages public trust in the non-purchase of the fair performance of official duties, and is a substantial harm to society, and is not a considerable amount of money received.

However, in full view of various circumstances, including the fact that Defendant A recognized the instant crime in the first instance trial and reflects the depth of the instant crime, the fact that there is no particular criminal history other than once a fine due to the instant crime, the dismissal on November 7, 2017, and the fact that there is little possibility of re-offending, as well as other favorable circumstances that form the conditions for the pleadings and the sentencing specified in the records of the instant case, including the balance of general criminal punishment in the same and similar cases, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant A’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. The crime of this case committed by Defendant B is a crime that greatly damages the public trust in relation to the purchase of the non-performance of official duties by granting KRW 14,370,000 on 27 occasions under the pretext of changing convenience in various water supply works ordered by Defendant B in Defendant B, and is a disadvantage to the society, such as the fact that there is a great harm to society, and that there is a little amount of money for official duties.

However, Defendant B recognized the crime of this case in the first instance and reflects its depth, there is no record of punishment for the same crime and the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment, and there is approximately two months of detention due to the crime of this case.