Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and two months, two years of imprisonment for Defendant B, one year of imprisonment for Defendant C and F.

(b)Article 357, paragraphs 2 and 1 (including), and the selection of fines;

E. Defendant F: Articles 357(2) and 357(1)(mainly) of the Criminal Act and choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for concurrent crimes with respect to heavy J-related breach of trust);

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with L-related L-related breach of trust prescribed by the Criminal Act)

1. Defendant D, E, and G at a workhouse: Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant C and F: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Social service Defendant C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Additional collection:

(a) Defendant A and C: The latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act [in the case of Defendant C, a surcharge shall be calculated as KRW 32,590,275 ( = 5,500 note *1,278.05 Won) by applying the exchange rate of 10:0 am (25,500 note paid by Defendant C) to the case of Defendant C]

B. Defendant B: the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “L-related breach of trust”), and the latter part of Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act (hereinafter “former Criminal Act”).

1. The remaining Defendants except Defendant F of the provisional payment order: Determination as to the Defendants and defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Determination as to Defendant B, F, and G’s assertion

A. The summary of the argument I directed an external enterprise to calculate the volume of structures using the X-cell file, but the enterprise subcontracted L and M with the process of calculating the volume of structures, taking into account, used the program that takes into account.

Therefore, it was difficult for Defendant B to review the result of L/M design service, and there was a lot of time to correct errors.

Accordingly, Defendant F and G only paid the service cost by entrusting the structural output work to Defendant B for the efficiency of the work.

Therefore, it is true.