The judgment below

The conviction part against Defendant A (including the acquittal part for reasons), Defendant B, D, and E, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine, as stated in each of the “a summary of the Defendants’ assertion”, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as stated in the part of the “a summary of the Defendants’ assertion.”

2) Of the lower judgment, the part concerning Defendant A’s violation of the Housing Act due to the “illegal supply of apartment units through mass sale of apartment units” and the part concerning Defendant A’s acquittal of the reasoning among the violation of the Political Funds Act with respect to CI, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine as stated in the part concerning “the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine” as follows.

B) Meanwhile, the prosecutor filed an appeal by asserting misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the portion not guilty of Defendant A’s violation of the Political Fund Act against BX, but this court modified the indictment with the content of deleting the facts charged. As such, this part of the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn.

B. Sentencing 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants ( ① Defendant A: 2-B, 3-B, 4-2 and 5-2-year imprisonment with prison labor for each of the following crimes; 6-year imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes; 2-year imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years; 3-year imprisonment for 3 years; 4-year suspension of execution; 4-year imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years; 3-year imprisonment for 3 years; 4-year suspension of execution; 3-year suspension of execution for Defendant E’s imprisonment for 2 years and 3-year suspension of execution) are too unreasonable.

2) The prosecutor (with respect to Defendant B, D, and E)’s above-mentioned sentence committed by the lower court against Defendant B, D, and E is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. An ex officio judgment (as to Defendant A), the prosecutor changed the amount of bribery provided to Defendant A to Defendant A from “19,465,500 won” to “19,267,500 won” among the facts charged against Defendant A, among the facts charged against Defendant A,