Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) has not received an unjust solicitation either explicitly or implicitly fromO with respect to the duties of members of L committee. Defendant A(1) or misunderstanding of legal principles.

In order to establish an illegal solicitation by an implied declaration of intent, there is a common perception or understanding between the parties on the content of the execution of duties subject to solicitation and that money and other valuables provided to a third party are a quid pro quo for the performance of their duties. Defendant A only recommended a stock company AB (hereinafter “AB”) as a specialized service company at the time, but did not know the fact that N (hereinafter “N”) entered into a contract with AB.

B) Z Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Z”)

(B) AB AB AB A service contract for “the analysis of vehicles, pedestrians, accessibility, and related plans arising from N construction” (hereinafter “instant service contract with the Z”).

The results of the instant M business (N from around September 2005 to the Seoul Jung-gu Q Senior District, the 8th underground floor, the 8th underground floor and the 39th ground ground level as part of the urban environment rearrangement project in Seoul, but the urban environment improvement zone related to the instant M business was modified since then, since the changes were made in the designation of the urban environment improvement zone related to the instant M business.

Two buildings and the so-called "R building" means the business of constructing two buildings, the scale of which is the scale.

hereinafter the same shall apply.

[] The money paid to AB is a legitimate service payment for a service contract that was actually concluded and executed and does not constitute a consideration for allowing AB to pass deliberation by the L Committee, even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty.