All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B (1) The judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant B of misunderstanding of facts on the following grounds is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. Defendant B did not receive a request from the police officer in charge of G and H in favor of the police officer in charge of G and H so that the case can be resolved well.

B) Defendant B did not have any fact between Gangwon-do and Defendant B around September 3, 2011, and only the table 2 of the crime sight table attached to the original judgment (hereinafter “crime sight table”).

(C) Defendant B received 150,000 won from her wife on September 3, 201, and used money as hospital expenses, etc. on September 5, 2011. If Defendant B received 7 million won in cash from her wife on September 14, 2011, Defendant B did not receive money from her wife. (c) The fact that around September 14, 201, Defendant B was between her high-speed bus and a congested bus for the reservation, but she did not met Defendant A in Gangwon-do, and was returned to Seoul on the following day. Accordingly, Defendant B did not receive cash from her wife on September 20, 201, and did not receive from 200 days in cash from her Seoul around September 20, 2011. Defendant B did not receive from 200 days in cash, she did not have reached the order of 108 days in Seoul.

F. On November 21, 2011, Defendant B did not receive cash from H as described in No. 7 of the crime sight table No. 1, but used a small book with the size of the floor at the time, and was not in a situation where it can be put in cash.

In addition, there is also a fact that H received 2.2 million won from H as stated, but this gives G and H an attorney-at-law.