All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the charge of bribery (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted, in particular, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in light of the following: (a) the statement of the mineer is consistent, specific, and the financial transaction details corresponding thereto are consistent and consistent.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the appeal did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the following facts and circumstances are revealed according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, and the evidence duly admitted.

Defendant

B There is no expertise in civil engineering materials and there is no experience in business activities related to civil engineering materials before the instant case, and there is no individual Do's human resources and physical facilities for government-funded materials business.

In appearance, Defendant B concluded an agency contract with a supplier of civil engineering materials and appears to have received business fees under the contract. However, the substance of the contract may be deemed to have requested by Defendant B to select the civil engineering materials of the relevant company as a government-funded material by soliciting the public officials who worked in the department related to civil engineering works through the friendship and connection with the public officials, and to have received money and valuables in return for such intermediary activities.

Examining these facts and circumstances in light of the relevant legal principles, it is justifiable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that collected the full amount of KRW 300,214,686 from the amount received by the court below as it convicted Defendant B of the facts charged in this case.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment