All parts of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

C 3 years of imprisonment, Defendant D.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

As to the Defendants A and B of the public prosecutor, the Defendants led to the confession of all the instant crimes at the public prosecutor’s office, and there was sufficient objective evidence to support them, the lower court rejected them without reasonable grounds, and acquitted the Defendants A and B.

Defendant

G The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 10,00) against G is too unhued and unreasonable.

Defendant

C, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) The prosecutor did not properly specify the facts charged.

(B) Defendant C and D, for their own business, endeavored to give orders for creative construction works ordered by the S Office of Education and its affiliated Office of Education for U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”), and performed exclusively all the tasks in the S area, including the preparation of a survey drawing, the selection and field management of the construction company, and the follow-up management, and received money equivalent to the percentage of the construction cost that U receives in return for the said tasks. As such, money and valuables are not received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the Defendants.

(C) Although Defendant B also conducted business activities against the S Office of Education, it is an arbitrary exercise of the right to institute a public prosecution against Defendant C and D without instituting a public prosecution against the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

(D) The violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Nos. 2 through 5 and 15, which are set forth in the separate list of crimes, is a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, since Defendant C and D independently received prior to being entrusted with the duties by U, or public officials of the S Office of Education are those who did not participate in the order, the violation of

The sentence of the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant D: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A's illegal actions after acceptance of bribery and defendant B's offering of bribe.