A. The lower court found Defendant A1 guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the said Defendant merely introduced Defendant B to Defendant D, and conspired with Defendant B, did not deceiving Defendant D as stated in the facts charged, and only received KRW 2 million in the name of expenses for handout or living in favor of them according to D’s instructions, and did not receive money in return for the promise of parole E, or in return for solicitation or intermediation thereof.

2) The sentence of the lower court against the above accused of sentencing (a prison term of six months, a stay of execution of two years, community service hours of 80 hours, and an additional collection of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, the lower court found Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) guilty of all the facts charged despite the fact that the money that the said Defendant received from D was merely KRW 2 million.

2) The sentence of the lower court against the above accused of sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service work 80 hours, the additional collection of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, but the lower court consistent with the circumstances in its reasoning, namely, ① paid KRW 2 million to Defendant A and KRW 3 million to Defendant B, respectively, in relation to the parole of D’s children from before the complaint was filed against the Defendants (from the message of telephone or text with the Defendants) to the lower court’s court (from the message of telephone or text with the Defendants).

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendants made a statement; (b) the Defendants also made a statement; and (c) the Defendants made a statement to the Defendants by asking the Defendants for parole; and (d) after the receipt of the said money, Defendant A made a request for a special amnesty or luminous withdrawal, the Defendants are aware of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the Defendants.