All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Defendant

A Since the defendant and the victim did not consider the purchase of state-owned land with resale agreement at the time when the defendant and the victim received money from the victim, the defendant does not demand money from the victim on the premise of purchase of state-owned land with resale agreement.

On May 6, 2005, the amount of KRW 50 million received from the victim was received as business promotion expenses, and the double KRW 10 million was paid to I as service payment.

On August 29, 2005, the amount of KRW 20 million received from the victim is paid to I as service payment.

On September 2, 2005, KRW 20,50,000,000,000 received from the victim, is a legitimate business cost, which is paid to I as the purchase price for private land.

The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) by the court below on the accused of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

On June 30, 2005, Defendant A’s statement was consistent with the victim’s statement regarding frauds of KRW 50 million of June 30, 2005, and according to the statement of transactions between the Defendant and his ancillary bank account by the Defendant and his ancillary bank account, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged in light of the following: (a) the amount of KRW 40 million out of KRW 50 million received on June 30, 2005 was deposited into the bank account on July 1, 2005, and there was no trace of withdrawal.

Defendant

B Recognizing the facts that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the prosecutor’s office on July 2005, the Defendant consistently stated that he received money from the superior Defendant three times, and when considering the bank transaction pattern of the superior Defendant, the amount that the Defendant gave to the Defendant does not show any trace of deposit in the passbook, the Defendant appears to have consented to the proposal of the above Defendant on June 26, 2005, and the reasons why the above Defendant reversed his statement in the middle should be deemed to be a statement to close the fact that his defense is no longer open to the middle, the difference between the statements made by the superior Defendant and the person who did not receive the name is merely an expression difference, and it is until the Defendant is arrested.