The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (three years of imprisonment) against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) Defendant and defense counsel asserted, in the appellate brief, that the above money was consumed by the Defendant that the EZ transferred the money to the account in the name of C, regardless of M, to the account in the name of C, and that it was not a bribe received from A, etc., and that there was a relationship with A as to the “Attachment Nos. 1, 8 and 3, 29, and 56” in the appellate brief.

Since four persons including the FA jointly travel Japan, the defendant's bribe of KRW 3,100,000 of total travel expenses was claimed to be KRW 775,000.

However, at the first trial date of the trial, the above argument was explicitly withdrawn, and it was alleged on the ground of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to occupational relations, and misunderstanding of sentencing and unfair appeal.

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (attached Nos. 1 and 22 through 27, and Attached Nos. 3 net 29 through 56, as indicated in the judgment below), the Defendant was transferred to the head of the Safety Environment Team at the North Korean Headquarters in Daegu around July 31, 2015 and did not take charge of information and communications or computer system-related affairs until the new agency is dismissed from the point of time, and the Defendant received golf or travels from A and C after July 31, 2015 and used credit cards in the name of C do not constitute a bribe due to lack of job relevance and quid pro quo.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles that found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an imprisonment of two years and six months, a fine of thirty-five million won, an additional collection of KRW 39,491,227) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Prosecutor (Defendant A) : The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, who was unfair in sentencing, is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.