All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment and fine 70 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) 1, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B’s 12 million won received from J on April 27, 2012 from the J on the part of Defendant B (hereinafter “L”) is not paid as a consideration for convenience to deliver the water measuring instruments of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to which J is the representative director at I, but instead received as a cost of living regardless of whether he/she is related or equivalent to his/her duties.

However, the court below recognized the above part of 12 million won as a bribe, and also applied the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by deeming that the amount of bribe received by Defendant B as a bribe by Defendant J was a total of 40,340,000 won, including the above 12 million won. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty relation or consideration for the crime of accepting a bribe, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a three years and six months of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 45 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant B, from around November 2006 to around July 14, 201, was in charge of the duties of the Water Supply and Waterworks Work Headquarters and the management of the charges for water supply and the duties of the new inspection contract, etc. at I, and was in charge of the general duties at the DE Dong office from July 18, 201 to July 14, 2013, and it is recognized that Defendant B was not in charge of the duties related to video inspection at the time of receiving KRW 12 million from the J on April 27, 2012.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the above evidence, Defendant B’s second statement made by the prosecution can be sufficiently reliable, and the above KRW 12 million was paid and received.