A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) The fact that Defendant A received some of the money from Defendant B is not a quid pro quo relationship as stated in the judgment of the court below.

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

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment for 8 months, suspended execution for 2 years, additional collection) against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the crime in which money and valuables are received on the pretext of a solicitation in connection with the affairs handled by a public official constitutes a crime in a planned and secret manner, and ② Article 1-A-2 of the facts charged of this case’s charges No. 1-B

A. B. Defendant B, the client at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, requested that Defendant B be able to deal well with the instant case against the Defendant A, on November 2014, when he was investigated by G and H in Seoul, with the instant charge No. 1-A, from the end of January 2015 to the trial court. Defendant B requested that Defendant B be able to deal well with the instant case. Defendant B was able to send the instant case to Defendant B through the National Assembly member’s request for employment from the end of February 2015 to the first half of February 2015, and Defendant B was 200,000 won among the 5 million won received from F, from the end of the National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea to the end of February 1, 2015. Defendant B was able to employ Defendant B as a public official of Grade 1-B through the National Assembly member of Grade 3, and Defendant B was able to appoint Defendant B as a public official of Grade 3 through the National Assembly member of Grade 1-B.