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

A. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant A (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) received KRW 130 million from Defendant B (hereinafter “the instant money”) merely borrowed from Defendant B to raise the deposit for the lease of apartment buildings. In full view of the duties of N (N)’s executive officers, as stated in the facts of the lower judgment, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received illegal solicitation as stated in the facts of the crime in the lower judgment and received as compensation therefor.

① There is no ground to view N, a pening business entity, that N would not provide a web sub-corporation (hereinafter referred to as “O”) that is a web sub-company, without the consent of the copyright holder, such as MBC, KBS, SBS (hereinafter referred to as “broadcasting 3 company”), and there was no ground to view that he/she would not provide a pening route and sales route data (hereinafter referred to as “O”). The Defendant’s provision of route data to O would assist the settlement of accounts arising from the O’s settlement system, and the time of provision was two months to four months after the Defendant received money from B.

In addition, that oneO is provided with logs from the defendant

Even if it is impossible to manipulate the data itself, it was not possible to omit the prescribed amount to be paid.

② N did not claim a pening usage fee from the date of entering into the O-Operation Web Hab and on April 2010 to February 2, 2012 from the date of entering into the pening service contract with B, and B acquired the O. It acquired the O.

In addition, there is no obligation to claim the user fee due to the failure to pay the user fee.

③ The record of telephone conversations between Defendant A and B, etc. (hereinafter “record of this case”) prepared by Defendant A in the course of conducting an interview investigation (hereinafter “the interview investigation document of this case”) and the telephone conversations between Defendant A and B, are not reliable as it was processed in the course of collecting data for B’s in order to keep the interview.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles).