Defendant

B, D’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A and D are all dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendants B and D’s unfair sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (Defendant A and D)’s improper sentencing: the lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one year of imprisonment, one year and six months of suspended sentence, and two years of suspended sentence) is unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to Defendant B’s unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court accepted KRW 20 million as a bribe in relation to his duties while taking charge of duties related to the installation of solar power generation facilities as a public official of the office at the time of rice delivery.

In the event that a public official in charge of the government-funded construction receives a bribe from a public official in charge of the public trust in relation to the purchase of the non-performance of official duties, which has a great harm to society and has a significant amount of the bribe received by the defendant, it may lead to a negative perspective on the performance of official duties to other decent competitors who intend to receive the government-funded construction fairly, and may cause harm to the majority of the public officials who have impliedly been impruced while maintaining integrity, including the fact that the punishment imposed by the court below falls under the lowest limit of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, and that the sentence imposed by the defendant falls under the highest limit of the recommended punishment imposed by the court below, in full view of the circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing that can be known by the record, the sentence imposed by the defendant is too heavy.

It does not appear.

The judgment of the court below is justified in the determination of the defendant or defense counsel, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against the Defendant A, the Defendant’s crime was committed on the basis of an individual relationship with the public official, etc., giving and receiving the consideration for the matters pertaining to the public official’s duties.