Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In collusion with the Defendant, there is no credibility in the statement made by A that he was paid KRW 27.5 million from the Defendant after putting down the unit price of earth and sand supply in collusion with the Defendant (200,000,000 won per cubic meter).

B) The part that acquired the money of KRW 35 million was agreed to set the compensation amount of KRW 35 million as the compensation amount of the Jando Construction Co., Ltd. and G Co., Ltd. to set KRW 35 million as the compensation amount of the Jando, and KRW 50 million as the compensation amount of the Oanto. According to the above agreement, since the above agreement was executed, it cannot be deemed that the damage was incurred to the victim Seadong Construction Co., Ltd., and the crime is not constituted. C) The agreement on the cost of soil transport preservation is not established since the Defendant agreed to the amount of oil expenses in consideration of the increase of oil expenses.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2. We examine ex officio determination (the grounds for appeal by Defendant A before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A).

This court decided to consolidate the appeal cases of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the appeal cases of the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the offenses which the court of first instance found guilty is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. A’s summary of the A’s statement is consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court, where the Defendant and the Defendant conspireded to infer about the misunderstanding of facts.