As to the assertion, Defendant B had already repaid the above twenty-three million won.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the statement does not coincide with the above Defendants; (b) if Defendant A received money from Defendant B as interest, the full amount of KRW 10 million should not be returned; (c) Defendant A used only part of the KRW 10 million received from Defendant B as a loan; (d) the remainder was consumed for personal purposes, such as Internet gambling money or living expenses; (e) Defendant A’s work within JDC; and (e) the relationship between the Defendants and the Defendants, etc., it cannot be ruled out that Defendant A’s official influence could not be ruled out; and (e) it is confirmed that convenience was provided to Defendant B, it can be recognized that Defendant A received KRW 10 million from Defendant B as a bribe, which is sufficiently related to compensation for the performance of duties.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the fact that Defendant A and B exchange the money corresponding to a bribe, and the nature and attitude of the above Defendants, the lower court’s punishment against the above Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

The Defendants’ mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the above Defendants did not have a person in charge of the sales of commercial facility sites as stated in the judgment below, and could not exercise influence over the sales of the said commercial facility sites, and all information provided to Defendant C and D by the above Defendant was publicly known and readily known.