All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor against Defendant B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the below, the defendant uses the title "the defendant" only for the defendant who falls under each item, and the remaining defendants shall state only their names.

A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant received a bribe in return for its good offices is a business of O(O) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) which is a contractor. Since the rehabilitation procedure against O was in progress, the court’s permission was required for the selection of a subcontractor for landscaping construction works, so the O’s selection of subcontractor for landscaping construction works is irrelevant to the Defendant’s duties, the head of the association.

B) The Defendant is de facto M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”).

(C) Although the defendant received KRW 50 million from C on November 18, 2011 and received KRW 50 million on June 5, 2012, the defendant's act of receiving KRW 50 million from C is not recognized as a single crime, and the method of crime cannot be evaluated as a single comprehensive act.) Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of this case against the defendant, based on its stated reasoning, on the grounds that the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) of this case against the defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the duty relationship and the number of crimes of bribery, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B 1 mistake of facts.