A. (1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant A’s receipt of KRW 2 million from the victim is the victim’s purchase of high-class bar, etc., which will be divided from the workshop to the answer case, and the victim’s purchase of them and received the payment, not the money as a solicitation for the case accused by the victim.

Therefore, it is not necessary to deceive the victim by deceiving 2 million won.

(2) Defendant B is merely aware of the case in which the victim was accused at the request of Defendant A, which help the victim and received, and the victim was accused of the victim. Defendant B did not in collusion with Defendant A and did not receive money from the victim for solicitation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the Defendants could be found to have received KRW 2 million in the name of solicitation of the case accused the victim by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

The victim stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that the victim stated to the effect that "A around April 10, 2010, it was necessary to have 5 million won in order for the victim's accusation case to be directly investigated by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in order to be directly investigated by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office."

In light of the fact that the above statements made by the victim are specific and consistent, and the JJ, which the victim was accompanied when visiting the office of Defendant A, stated to the same effect as the victim in the investigation agency and the court of original instance.