All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A is a Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”).

(B) After concluding a sales contract with the Defendant, it is unreasonable to order the Defendant to pay for the portion of the tax paid in return for the payment of the tax, since the Defendant received KRW 66 million, among the 66 million, as value-added tax, because it was returned and paid for the portion of the tax that was paid in return for a solicitation or arrangement of public officials’ duties.

3) At the time of concluding the agreement with P, Defendant C had already been selected as a construction method for the construction business of the N at the time of so-called “B”, and thus, it was anticipated that O’s supply of materials was planned. The Defendant only collected and delivered the disclosed information on the conclusion of the contract for the supply of materials with the Public Procurement Service and did not recommend or arrange the public officials to determine the nature of the material supply contract with the Public Procurement Service or to make the contract prior to the time of concluding the contract. However, the lower court’s decision on the unfair sentencing was unreasonable. Each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment for August, probation period of suspension of execution of execution of two years, 29,768,000, additional collection of KRW 1 year, 20 years, 20 hours, 120 hours, 66,000,000, and Defendant C’s imprisonment for one year, 2 years, 1 year suspension of execution of sentence of two years, 120 hours, 600,000 won.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant is a public official.