The judgment below

All of the convictions against Defendant A and C and the part concerning Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D1) Defendant A received a bribe at the request of C, instead of receiving a request from C to “the amount of the design alteration cost related to the design change of the instant railroad construction”, rather than receiving a request from C to “the amount of the design alteration cost related to the design change of the instant railroad construction.”

B) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant (an amount of 3 years of imprisonment and a fine of 50 million won, 5 million won, and 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable (an additional collection of KRW 34 million, a fine of KRW 17 million).

3) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable to impose the Defendant’s punishment (a punishment of 2 years of imprisonment, 50,000 originals of 400 originals of unconstitutionality).

4) Defendant DA does not constitute a bribe inasmuch as the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact did not constitute a 5 million won, which was issued by C, due to the lack of occupational relevance and quid pro quo.

B) The sentence of the lower court against the illegal defendant (the 2-year imprisonment with prison labor and the 2-year suspension of the execution of the sentence, the 10 million won fine, and the 5 million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. A) As to Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), the Defendant received KRW 15 million from C on January 8, 2016, and the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant received KRW 5 million delivery.

B) As to occupational breach of trust (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), there was a cause for the application of the original design due to an error in the design of the original designer or a difference in the field conditions, the Defendant had the occupational duty to require the original designer to supplement or bear the cost. However, the Defendant is an original designer composed of domestic highest experts in breach of such duty upon receiving a solicitation to raise the cost of design change from C.