A. Defendants 1) 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant A did not receive money from G, and the statements made by related persons including G that provided money to Defendant A are not reliable.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and fine and additional collection, each of which is 15 million won) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s sentence (the suspended sentence of imprisonment and the fine and the additional collection of 5 million won each) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the relevant legal principles, in a case where the issue is whether to accept money or valuables, the Defendant’s statement that was identified as the recipient of money or valuables was denied, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, must be admissible as evidence, and in order to acknowledge Defendant A guilty on the sole basis of the statement made by the person who provided the money or valuables. In determining credibility, it is necessary to examine not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency in the contents of the statement itself, but also the existence of interests derived from the statement as well as the existence of credibility (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201; 2013Do9866, Jun. 26, 2014; 2013Do1487, Jun. 26, 2014; 2010Do1205, Nov. 24, 2014).