The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of two years and six months and by a fine of twenty-four million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When taking into account various circumstances against Defendant A, C, and C, each punishment of the lower court (the imprisonment of two years and the fine of 24 million won, the surcharge of 48 million won, and the imprisonment of one year and two months, and the surcharge of 3,128 million won) is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

C. (1) The part (2) (Violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment) merely requests Defendant A to remit money to the O’s deposit account and to transfer money to the O’s account in collusion with Defendant B, and does not transfer money to the O’s account in collusion with Defendant B. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B had the intention to disguise the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.

② Article 3-2 of the facts charged in the instant case

Part 3 No. 3 of the crime sight table 3 of the crime committed in this paragraph (the crime committed on December 26, 2008) is not a consideration for illegal solicitation, but a part 1 of the facts charged.

As stated in the foregoing paragraph, the crime of giving property in breach of trust may not be deemed established, since four embezzlements were conducted in collusion with Defendant A, and part of the proceeds of embezzlement was returned to A pursuant to the prior agreement.

③ Article 3-4 of the facts charged in the instant case

In the section 5 of the crime sight list 5 [Interference with a tender for electric cable items (contract number AC) around November 201] among the ports, there is no fact that there was any consultation with AD or other bidding enterprises that are successful bidders, and in fact, there is no fact that there was no prevention or interference with the participation of other bidding enterprises in the tender. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of interference with the tender is established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

(2) The lower court’s punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too heavy in consideration of various circumstances on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing.

C. Details of each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants.