All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of the facts (the giving of a bribe around May 23, 2016 to Defendant B) is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the absence of a bribe in collusion with Defendant D, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. On May 23, 2016, Defendant B was guilty of this part of the facts charged due to Defendant B’s statement, etc. without credibility even though Defendant B received KRW 5 million from Defendant D, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) On July 8, 2016, D, who was suspected of having been in a position to exercise the right to perform the creative construction work, following the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Emb. for Albry players), acquired 30 million won from AI by borrowing a contract for the creative construction.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges due to the statement of D without credibility, etc. is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, fine of KRW 10,00,000) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C1’s mistake of the facts [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) around June 16, 2016] Defendant C introduced AG and did not promise to receive part of the profit from the Changho Construction, and even if it was proposed to provide the profit, Defendant C clearly expressed its intention to refuse it on July 4, 2016, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant D’s punishment (limited to 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(e)an inspector 1);