1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

2. A. Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and fine for 80,000.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) Defendant A’s mistake of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Aggravationd Crimes (Bribery) on the "Bribery against D through D"; (b) each amount of money, which is once more than 4 (related to examination buses), 10, 17, 18, 19, 13 (related to medical equipment, such as biochemical analysis equipment) and 13 (related to medical equipment, such as biochemical analysis equipment) of the sight of the crime committed; and (c) distribution after acquiring the difference from winning the successful bid price, is limited to an internal profit distribution between the Defendant and the accomplices through embezzlement or prior conspiracy of fraud, and is not a bribe received in relation to his/her duties.

It is limited to the internal distribution of part of the profits acquired from joint embezzlement or fraud in relation to the delivery of medical equipment, etc. for violations of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Aggravations (Bribery) on the "Bribery from B", and it is not a bribe in relation to the duties.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of 6 years and the fine of 220 million won, the additional collection of 189,450,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B. In the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, since the Defendant was only a person entrusted by Q team and did not take charge of the conclusion of the contract, the amount received from D is not related to his duties, and the amount received from D was distributed in the position of the manager of the medical device company in accordance with the agreement with D, and was not distributed in return for the Defendant’s duties. The crime of this case was committed after embling the fund of the radiation health center in the manner of acquiring the difference between A and the unit price. Thus, the crime of this case was distributed after embling the fund of the radiation health center in the manner of acquiring the difference. Thus, the crime of embezzlement can only be punished.

Even if job relations are recognized, the defendant's receipt of the D is not the profit itself, but the offer of opportunities for bid-related partnership business.