All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant alleged that each of the crimes of this case committed by B did not contain any conspiracy or collusion with each of the crimes of this case committed by B is only a single crime committed by the Defendant B at the lower court, and the Defendant did not contain any conspiracy or collusion with the crimes of this case as indicated in each of the charges of this case.

In other words, from among the technical inspections and quality inspections of the water intake facilities that the defendant supplied to the Korea Power and Nuclear Energy Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Power and Energy Corporation”), it is found that the instant VCR was produced by the steel board of “S400”, not the inspection certificate of “SW400” as stated in the purchase specifications and the purchase request form, but the inspection certificate of “S400” was attached to B, and there was no fact that B arbitrarily changed the size of the inspection certificate into “SW400”, and demanded and instructed B to revise the relevant quality guarantee documents in accordance with them to submit them, thereby forging and exercising the inspection certificate (hereinafter “instant inspection certificate”). Accordingly, there was no fact that the instant VSSL was acquired by acquiring the price of supplied goods in collusion with B.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the Defendant’s testimony, etc. without credibility, based on the circumstances indicated in its holding, and found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B) Even if the act of deception of the Defendant’s Hanwon due to the forgery of each inspection certificate of this case, such as the amount of fraud fraud, is recognized, it shall be limited to KRW 59,43,010, which is not all the amount equivalent to the price of delivered goods, but is the price of VCSL portion, and the Defendant accordingly.