All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) The lower court found Defendant E guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant, despite lack of evidence to prove that there was insufficient evidence to prove the violation of the law of defense among the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(A) With respect to the violation of the defense justice following the receipt of KRW 50 million, 50 million paid by the defendant from A in light of the process of concluding the service contract between the defendant and A, the process of concluding the service contract between the defendant and the defendant, the defendant's act after the decision, the appropriateness of the service cost, etc., and not the amount paid by the defendant as a result of solicitation or mediation for the handling of the affairs of a person who is deemed a public official.

(B) There is no credibility in the statement made to the investigation agency of the CO with respect to the violation of defense justice following the receipt of KRW 8 million, and there is no other evidence supporting the fact that the defendant was paid the money under the pretext of solicitation or mediation concerning the handling of a person who is deemed a public official by the CO.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of one year, additional collection of 58 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor's court below's each sentence imposed on the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) as to Defendant E’s violation of the law of defense following the acceptance of KRW 50 million, the lower court also asserted that this part of the facts were identical to the assertion of mistake of facts, but the lower court, by taking account of the macrosive evidence, rejected the above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records.