The judgment below

The parts against the Defendants are reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds of appeal filed by a defense counsel after Defendant A was not timely filed shall be examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief.

: Error of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing 1) misunderstanding of facts as to the facts charged by the defendant in the original trial is about the facts that the defendant received KRW 400 million from the defendant Eul as well as the defendant D and F, and Y does not about the fact that the defendant received KRW 792,646,370 in return for solicitation from the defendant Eul, Y paid the compensation for the subcontract mediation to the defendant Eul. This is not the fact that the defendant was aware of the public official's illegal solicitation, and the defendant Eul was the defendant Eul was the president, and the defendant Eul was the defendant Eul was the defendant Eul was the defendant Eul, and the defendant Eul was the defendant C, F, and D, and received the money as the consideration for the mediation. Thus, the conclusion that the defendant was received in return for the mediation is against the rules of evidence, and there is an error of law of misconception of facts by misapprehending the facts. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (an additional collection 100 million won) is too unfair.

B. Defendant B: The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing ( Imprisonment of three years, additional collection of KRW 392,646,370) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C: In order to misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of unreasonable sentencing 1, the Defendant A did not contact the Asan Viewing public official through the Defendant, and the upper Defendant B consulted with the AI of the public official in charge of the Asan-si prior to the delivery of the Defendant, and the upper Defendant D and F are merely only the first time in the trial process. As such, the subject of solicitation was specified as AM and the Defendant, who is not a public official in charge of the business, thereby causing disadvantages to the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, and the Defendant was indicted as a crime of acceptance of bribe, the above argument in the grounds of appeal was examined by the lower court on the background that the Defendant received the money from the upper Defendant A and B